SHAKUNTALA Vs. KANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against orders dt. 13.09.2013, 19.09.2013 and 28.10.2013 passed by the trial Court, whereby, on 13.09.2013 the trial Court ordered that it did not appear just to grant additional time for compliance of its order dt. 14.09.2011 and directed listing of the suit for further proceedings, on 19.09.2013 the application filed by the petitioner seeking fixing of the date and time with the consent of the Commissioners for taking voice sample so that plaintiff can be bound to remain present on the said date to complete the proceedings was rejected and on 28.10.2013 the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLVII, Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking review of the order dt. 19.09.2013 was rejected. In a suit for eviction filed in the year 2000 the petitioner, inter alia, sought to rely on the tape recorded telephonic conversation between the plaintiff and husband of the petitioner; the application dt. 13.12.2005 filed by the petitioner under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') seeking examination of the tape recorded conversation by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur ('FSL') was rejected by the trial Court on 19.07.2007; against the order dt. 19.07.2007 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7005/2007 was preferred by the petitioner, which was allowed by this Court on 04.04.2008 setting aside the order impugned and restoring back the application for reconsideration by the trial Court; by order dt. 14.09.2011 the trial Court directed for testing the undisputed voice recording and the voice recording in question through FSL and the learned counsel for the plaintiff was directed to produce the plaintiff before the Court on the next date for giving sample of his voice; whereafter, on 01.09.2012 the Court appointed two Lawyers as Commissioners for getting the voice of the plaintiff recorded and produce the same before the trial Court; whereafter, the matter kept on getting adjourned and ultimately on 13.09.2013 the Court noticed that for the purpose of compliance of order dt. 14.09.2011 matter was getting adjourned but the order has not been complied with, it appears that the parties were not interested in compliance of the order and were wasting the precious time of the Court and were causing delay in deciding the suit and, consequently, directed the suit to be listed for further proceedings; on 19.09.2013, the petitioner filed application seeking fixing of the date for doing the needful in terms of order dt. 14.09.2011; on the same date, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the application as the implementation of the order dt. 14.09.2011 has already been cancelled by the Court on 13.09.2013 and, consequently, dismissed the application.

(2.) THE petitioner filed review application qua the order dt. 19.09.2013; a reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff and after hearing the parties the trial Court came to the conclusion that too much opportunities were granted to the petitioner to do the needful; earlier from 14.09.2011 to 01.09.2012 and from 01.09.2012 to 13.09.2013 for doing the needful, however, nothing was done by the petitioner; there was no restriction in getting the same done irrespective of the fact that there was suspension of work or the Presiding Officer was not available and no case for review was made out and, consequently, dismissed the application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions; it was submitted that on all the occasions the plaintiff was present for doing the needful, however, the petitioner did not take any interest whatsoever for getting the voice sample recorded and the plaintiff was unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner and, therefore, no indulgence is required to be given; for a simple application and for the purpose of recording the voice, the petitioner has spent almost more than three years, the suit is pending since the year 2000 and the petitioner is merely seeking to delay the inevitable; it was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.