HARI OM @ HARI MOHAN Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dt. 16.08.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh District Alwar (herein after 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner -defendant (herein after 'the tenant') on 14.08.2012 praying therein that defence evidence be opened and the defendant tenant be allowed to bring on record the money receipts evidencing the fact of tendering of rent through money -order and refusal thereof by the plaintiff -respondent (herein after 'the landlord'). Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition including the impugned order dt. 16.8.2012 passed by the trial Court.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order indicates that on the matter coming up before the trial Court in an eviction suit laid by the landlord, the trial Court vide order dt. 31.03.2012 dismissed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the tenant on a cost of Rs. 200/ - simultaneously requiring the tenant to lead his defence evidence and the next date was fixed as 22.05.2012. On 22.05.2012, the tenant did produce his defence evidence as directed by the trial Court in its earlier order, but in the interest of justice the trial Court granted another opportunity to the tenant to bring his defence evidence on 26.05.2012. On 26.05.2012, instead of producing his defence evidence, the tenant moved an application under Order 8 Rule 2 CPC, which was allowed on a cost of Rs. 200/ -. But the defence evidence was closed due to failure of the tenant to lead his defence evidence as directed. The matter was put up for final arguments.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, there is no perversity in the impugned order dt. 16.08.2012, nor is the order impugned vitiated by any misdirection of law. It appears from the chronology of events detailed above that efforts of the tenant has been only to delay the adjudication of the eviction suit before the trial Court. Admittedly about three opportunities were given to the tenant to lead his defence evidence yet not availed of consequent to which the defence evidence was closed on 26.05.2012. Then after a delay of more than three months, in the course of final arguments an application for reopening of defence evidence and bringing on record certain documents was quite palpably an effort of the tenant to delay the trial of case, Proceedings before the trial Court or any Court for that matter deserve to be respected by the litigants. The Courts are not play -grounds for litigants to impose their own procedure contrary to law and as warranted in the interest of justice. The casualness in the proceedings before the Court when found is to be strictly set right by the Court, as has been done by the trial Court in the instant case. It is not for this Court as a superior Court to interfere with well considered discretionary order of the trial Court on the mere askance without anything more on the mere argument of "interest of justice". Discretionary orders ought not to be interfered by this Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction unless perversity can be found or jurisdictional issues arise. None of the said situations obtains in this case. I therefore find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.