SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. SUMITRA DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The son of the petitioner appears in person and seeks adjournment. I refuse to grant an adjournment in the facts of the present case, and more so because this case has already come up for hearing since 06.5.2011 on over a dozen of hearings.

(2.) The impugned order which is challenged in the present case is order dated 11.11.2010 which has dismissed an application seeking review of the order dated 11.5.2010. By the order dated 11.5.2010, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for framing additional issues was dismissed.

(3.) A reading of the impugned order dated 11.11.2010 shows that the petitioner/plaintiff is deliberately delaying her own case by filing one application after another. More importantly, the court has already observed that the existing issues will cover the additional issues which are sought to be framed by the petitioner/plaintiff.