Delhi High Court
Prem Lata & Ors vs Kuwar Pal (Deceased) & Ors on 28 August, 2017
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 927/2017
PREM LATA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Monica Kapoor, Adv.
Versus
KUWAR PAL (DECEASED) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 28.08.2017
CMs No.31125/2017 & 31126/2017 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
CM(M) 927/2017 & CM No.31124/2017 (for stay)
3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Impugns
the order [dated 4th July, 2017 in E No.707/14/05 (New No.78416/16) of the
Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC)-2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi] of dismissal of the applications of the petitioners, under Order XI
Rules 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); and, under Order
XVIII Rule 17 of CPC for recall of PW2 for further cross-examination.
4. The learned ARC in the impugned order has given detailed reasons for
dismissal of the application and which show the neglect and dilatory tactics
adopted by the petitioners with respect to a petition for eviction filed
by the respondent on the ground of requirement of the premises in
occupation of the petitioner for the own use of the respondent. The learned
ARC in the impugned order has also noticed that the petition for eviction
was filed as far back as in March, 2005 and had already been pending for 12
years.
5. Qua the challenge to the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of
CPC, suffice it is to state that though the right of the petitioner to cross-
examine PW2 was closed as far back as on 5th June, 2013 but the application
under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC was filed only after three years, in May,
2016.
6. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were
represented by N.C. Gupta & Co. Advocates; that Mr. Brijesh Johar,
Advocate from N.C. Gupta & Co. was attending to the said case; that Mr.
Brijesh Johar, Advocate left N.C. Gupta & Co. Advocates prior to 5th June,
2013 and set up his own practice; that thereafter none from N.C. Gupta &
Co. Advocates followed up the case; it is only when the petitioners, in or
about 2015 again engaged Mr. Brijesh Johar, Advocate, when the
applications aforesaid were filed.
7. A perusal of the order sheet dated 5 th June, 2013 shows proxy counsel
to have appeared for Mr. Brijesh Johar, Advocate. The counsel for the
petitioners on enquiry states that the said proxy counsel was from the office
of N.C. Gupta & Co. It is thus not as if, N.C. Gupta & Co., after Mr. Brijesh
Johar, Advocate had left, had no idea of the case or that the said case went
out of the horizon of N.C. Gupta & Co. There is also no explanation as to
why the petitioners did not contact N.C. Gupta & Co. Advocates or did not
follow up the case. Merely by blaming earlier advocate and who is not even
given the opportunity to defend the allegations against him, the opposite
party to the litigation, cannot be made to suffer.
8. Similarly, the application under Order XI Rules 1&2 of CPC for a
direction to the respondents to answer interrogatories, after the petitioners
have had a chance to cross-examine the respondents has been rightly
dismissed.
9. The filing of the applications and this petition is nothing but an
attempt to delay the disposal of the petition for eviction which, as per the
administrative directions of the National Court Management Systems
Committee of the Supreme Court and the State Court Management System
Committee of this Court, has to be disposed of expeditiously. If on the
Judicial Side, the steps taken by the Judicial Officer to comply with the
administrative directions are set aside, the same will amount to sending
mixed-signals to the Judicial Officer resulting in target of disposal of all
more than ten years old cases prior to 31 st December, 2017 not being
achieved.
10. There is no merit in the petition.
11. Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 28, 2017
bs
