HASEENA BHANU Vs. ASMATHUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order passed by XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes dated 23-2-2013 in HRC No. 10052 of 2011 whereunder application filed by the writ petitioner seeking recalling of P.W. 2 has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Heard the arguments of Sri Ramesh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Venkataramana, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order.

(2.) Respondent herein has filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the petitioner herein and for a direction to pay arrears of rent from December 2009 till date of eviction. Respondent herein had got herself examined and subsequently, a witness has also been examined on behalf of the petitioner as P.W. 2. P.W. 2 was partly cross-examined by petitioner herein and subsequently evidence was closed. Impugned order would indicate that several interlocutory applications had been filed by petitioner herein under different provisions and they came to be disposed of on merits and sufficient opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to cross-examine P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and also to lead evidence. Trial Court has noted that despite granting sufficient opportunity to writ petitioner, no further progress has been shown and the intention of the writ petitioner is not bona fide and her only intention is to drag on the proceedings and she was adopting delay tactics. Trial Court has rightly observed that the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 and Section 42 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 mandates that petitions filed under Rent Act are to be disposed of within six months and trial should be conducted summarily. It is noted by Trial Court that writ petitioner has taken more than 3 adjournments and after taking the totality of the case, I.A filed by petitioner herein for recall P.W. 2 has been rejected. There cannot be any fault found on the findings recorded by Trial Court.

(3.) However, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner contends that if P.W. 2 is not cross-examined, certain admissions cannot be elicited from her and he undertakes to proceed with cross-examination of P.W. 2 and also tender evidence before Trial Court on such terms and conditions as this Court may impose for disposing the matter.