RAJENDRA KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. SHAILESH KUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.

(2.) The tenant has moved an application for issue of commission to examine the establishment of shops in possession of the occupant and his sons.? A commission cannot be issued to collect the evidence.? The Learned Prescribed? Authority has rightly observed that the release application is pending for the last fifteen years and the tenant, who is petitioner before this Court is getting it adjourned on one pretext or the other.? The factum of release of the shop in possession of the tenant as lessee, is in question.? The tenant did not move any application for issue of commission regarding the shop in question, for the release of which the learned Prescribed Authority is concerned.? The scope of commission under Order XXVI C.P.C cannot be extended to collect the evidence covering the entire family of any of the parties regarding any plea about the landlord or his sons are in occupation of several buildings.? The evidence could? be led by the parties.? The commissioner cannot be substituted as an Evidence Collection Agent.? The learned Prescribed Authority has wisely rejected the application so as to discourage scrupulous litigant to move such motivated application solely with a view to prolong the proceeding to its maximum.

(3.) It is true, that in an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in process of justice dispensation.? The object behind the provision to issue commission, is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same.? This petition demonstrates, how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag a litigation to frustrate the results for judicial determination in favour of the other side.