BHARAT BHUSHAN PAREEK Vs. ADJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE execution of an eviction decree passed in favour of the landlord and against the lawyer -tenant has unfortunately engulfed the legal fraternity in the State of Rajasthan.

(2.) THE dispute between landlord, the respondents No. 2 and 3, and the tenant, the petitioner, has been raging for about fourteen years. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had filed an eviction suit against the petitioner which was eventually decreed in their favour by judgment dated 25.7.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed a Civil First Appeal, namely S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 453/2003, before this court which is still pending. By order dated 24.10.2007, this court had stayed the execution of the decree through a conditional order. However, as the petitioner failed to adhere to the conditions imposed by this court, by order dated 18.2.2014, the stay order was vacated. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2014, he filed a D.B. Civil Special Appeal, namely D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3/2014, before a Division Bench of this court. However, by judgment dated 30.5.2014, the said Special Appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the landlord pressed for execution of the decree. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a SLP, namely SLP(C)(CC) No. 11467/2014, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders dated 18.2.2014 and 30.5.2014. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said SLP has been withdrawn.

(3.) MR . Mahendra Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, informed this court that ever since the submission of the present petition much water has flown under the bridge. When this court asked Mr. Gaur to elaborate as to what has happened after the submission of the present petition, he declined to do so. Instead, he insisted that it is for the respondents No. 2 and 3 to inform this court about the subsequent events that have taken place after this petition was submitted before this court. He merely informed this court that since the petitioner was aggrieved by the orders dated 18.2.2014 and 30.5.2014, the petitioner had filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, subsequently the petitioner has withdrawn the said SLP. This court tried to convince Mr. Gaur that as an officer of the court it is his primary duty to inform this court about the subsequent developments especially when he has made a statement that "much water has flown under the bridge". But despite the request of the court, Mr. Gaur continued to be unmoved.