Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Virendra Singh vs Devi Singh (2024:Rj-Jd:41402) on 9 October, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:41402]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7684/2024
1. Virendra Singh S/o Harpreet Singh, Aged About 45 Years,
By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Ganguwala, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sriganganagar.
2. Chinder Singh S/o Surjan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By
Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Village Kaliya, Tehsil And District
Sriganganagar.
3. Gurmeet Singh S/o Gurpratap Singh, Aged About 48
Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 3 E Choti, Tehsil And
District Sriganganagar.
4. Jagnandan Singh S/o Gajansingh, Aged About 62 Years,
By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 9 G Choti, Tehsil And District
Sriganganagar.
5. Maninder Singh Maan S/o Gur Pratap Singh, Aged About
51 Years, By Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 3 E Choti, Tehsil
And District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Devi Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, Vishnu Bhojnalaya Near
Vishnoi Dharmsahala, Public Park, Bikaner.
2. Vikram Singh S/o Hari Singh, Hotel Palace View, Lalgarh,
Campus, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/10/2024
1. None appears for the petitioners.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the
petitioners landlord with a sole prayer to direct the Appellate Rent
Tribunal, Bikaner for expeditious disposal of the Rent Appeal
No.64/2023 pending before him.
3. In the opinion of this Court, in absence of any statistics
regarding the institution, pending and disposal of the cases before
the concerned Tribunal, no sweeping direction can be passed to
[2024:RJ-JD:41402] (2 of 4) [CW-7684/2024]
decide a particular case on priority. Passing such order, in the
opinion of this Court, would interfere with the cause list of the
concerned Court/Tribunal and the corresponding priorities of the
other pending matters.
4. As observed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court in Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250
(DB), it would be most inappropriate of the Court to entertain a
writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the
Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a
suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move
the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other
cases which may be of similar or great antiquity and urgency are
left to be decided in the normal channel. Therein, the Court
further observed as under:
"Hence, any such direction may be issued with the
greatest case and circumspection by the High Court
otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with
requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been
expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot
afford the expenses of moving the High court and would
not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such
an order.
Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of
discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a
ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize
that there may be other cases such as involving senior
citizens, those who are differently abled or people
suffering from a particular disability socio-economic or
otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is
for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her
mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be
expedited."
5. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge
[2024:RJ-JD:41402] (3 of 4) [CW-7684/2024]
Small Causes & Ors.; 2011 (88) ALR 850 wherein the Court
observed as under:
"We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious
disposal of suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum
and substance, means out of turn disposal is to be
exercised sparingly in extraordinary circumstances and not
in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised only when the
Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause
gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the
Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice
to other litigants, who are waiting for justice from before
because the very nature of order delays cases filed earlier.
It causes resentment and dissatisfaction to those who are
waiting for justice from before. It should be exercised only
when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in
seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the
suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice.
An order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can
not be countenanced."
6. So far as the present matter is concerned, admittedly, vide
judgment dated 02.09.2023, the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner
directed respondents tenants to deliver vacant possession of
premised in question to petitioners within a period of six months
from the date of judgment. Respondent No.1 Devi Singh aggrieved
of the said judgment filed an appeal before Appellate Rent
Tribunal, Bikaner on 21.10.2023.
7. On 17.11.2023, time was sought by counsel appearing for
respondents No.1 to 5 therein to file Vakalatnama and summons
were issued to respondent No.6.
8. On 19.01.2024 and 19.03.2024, two different counsels
appeared for respondent No.6 therein and sought time to file
Vakalatnama.
[2024:RJ-JD:41402] (4 of 4) [CW-7684/2024]
9. After perusing the writ petition and the order sheets as
available on record, it does not appear that the proceedings have
been delayed inordinately or intentionally.
10. In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the present writ petition and the same is hence,
dismissed.
11. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
60-SPhophaliya/AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
