STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter was admitted on 30. 03. 2000. On 31. 03. 2000, the office directed the petitioner to file process fee and notices by 22. 04. 2000. THIS has not been done which is apparent from the report of the office dated 24. 4. 2000. On 25. 04. 2001, the matter was ordered to be come up before Registrar on 30. 5. 2000. On 30. 5. 2000 two weeks time was granted to the petitioner for filing process fee and notices. On 1. 06. 2000, the matter was ordered to place on 12. 07. 2000 with required report. From the office report of 13. 07. 2000, I find that process fee and notices have not been filed by the petitioner by that date. On 13. 7. 2000, the matter was directed to be placed on 14. 08. 2000 in court. Still the process fee and notices have not been filed, as it is clear from the report of office dated 16. 8. 2000. Matter was not come up for order in Court on 14. 8. 2000. On 17. 8. 2000, the matter was directed to be placed in court for 21. 9. 2000. By 20. 9. 2000, the PF and notices were not filed, and it does on 15th Nov. , 2000, 17. 1. 2001, 27. 3. 2001 & 22. 5. 2001 and 31. 5. 2001. Till then as the office report dated 26. 5. 2001 shows process fee and notices have not been filed by the petitioner. The matter has come up in Court on 31. 5. 2001 and on request of counsel for the petitioner the same was adjourned to 16. 7. 2001.

(2.) AFTER this, the matter has come up in court today. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of further time to file the process fee and notices. I do not find any jurisdiction whatsoever in this prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts aforestated of this matter it can reasonably inferred that the petitioner has no interest whatsoever in this case. More than what the indulgence was necessary has been granted to the petitioner and the petitioner has not availed of the same. No further indulgence can be granted to him. By not filing the process fee and notices unnecessarily, the petitioner increased the work of the registry and the Court. The Courts are facing serious problem how to overcome the mounting arrears behave, proceed and take the matter in the manner and fashion as what it is done by the petitioner in this case, it is nothing but to create problems and hindrances for the court in dispensation of justice to the litigants. It results unnecessary burdening the registry and the court in a work which is wholly avoidable in case the petitioner would have realised his duties which he owes to the Court. In case any further indulgence is granted in favour of this litigant, it would result in giving a premium for his negligence, carelessness and an approach totally unmindful of his duties which he has to the other litigants in the court who are waiting for the decision in their cases for the last more than one decade. Yet there is another reason for which no further indulgence can be granted to the petitioner in this matter. It is clear case of negligence and careless on the part of the petitioner in conduct of the matter. This negligence and carelessness on the part of litigant is not condonable. If it is done it will result in spoiling the litigants and a judicial expected discipline. Not only this the petitioner has not come up with any explanation good, bad or indifferent for this negligence and carelessness.