KESARBEN DHULAJI PRAJAPATI Vs. AMARSINGH BALDEVSINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed by the petitioner who is the original obstructionist in execution proceedings and the appellant in the lower appellate Court. The first respondent herein, viz., Amarsingh Baldevsingh Chauhan, was a decree-holder who died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Court and came to be represented by Laxmansingh Baldevsingh Chauhan. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein were parties to the original suit, but their status so far as the present revision is concerned, is not significant.

(2.) The relevant and pertinent facts leading to the present revision are not only necessary to be examined, in order to focus the attention thereon in the correct perspective, but also present an outstanding case where lengthy, protracted and deliberately extended litigation tends to defeat justice, and results in frustration to those who are law-abiding citizens and seek to redress their grievances through due process of law instead of resorting to extra-judicial methods.

(3.) Amarsingh Baldevsingh Chauhan-original plaintiff was a landlord of the leased premises in question, and he filed H.R.P. Suit No. 5202 of 1968 for eviction of his tenant and sub-tenants, and for possession of the leased premises under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. It is significant and important to note that this was the commencement of the litigation, in the year 1968, viz., almost 28 years ago. This suit was filed against Shivnarayan Dhulaji Prajapati, who was alleged to be the sole tenant of the plaintiff-landlord. It is also pertinent and significant to note that the present petitioner Kesarben Dhulaji is the mother of the aforesaid Shivnarayan Dhulaji Prajapati, and to also note that the present respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of the present petitioner and also the sons of the tenant Shivnarayan Dhulaji.