SURESH KUMAR Vs. RAJ NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by defendant- petitioner before this Court against the order, dated 15.5.1995 passed by Additional Munsif No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 426/80 whereby learned trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner on the grounds inter alia :

(3.) IN order to judge the veracity of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I verified the facts from the certified copy of the order-sheets of the trial Court produced by learned counsel for the non-petitioner at the time of hearing. I have found a great difference in the dates and the dates mentioned by the petitioner in the memo of revision petition do not tally with the dates as recorded in the order-sheets of the trial Court. From the order-sheets it is apparent that the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant for the first time on 4.1.93 when the evidence was not produced and request was made for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 16.2.93. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for recording the defendant's evidence on 16.4.93, 21.4.93, 17.5.93, 19.7.93, 19.8.93, 27.9.93, 28.10.93, 22.11.93, 25.11.93, 6.12.93, 6.1.94, 18.3.94, 18.5.94, 18.7.94, 1.8.94, 8.9.94, 9.10.94, 20.10.94, 24.10.94, 10.11.94, 9.12.94, 11.1.95, 21.1.95, 22.2.95, 6.3.95, 23.3.95, 4.4.95, 14.4.95 and lastly on 15.5.95 when the impugned order was passed by the trial Court directing closure of the defendant's evidence. Thus, it is apparent from the above that as many as 30 adjournments were repeatedly sought by the defendant-petitioner for leading his evidence and were granted and yet the petitioner deliberately did not lead any evidence before the trial Court with mala fide and ulterior motives of harassing the plaintiff-non-petitioner and surprisingly the trial Court also gave undue latitude to the petitioner by repeatedly adjourning the matter on frivolous grounds for which there are no justifiable reasons on the record. It is a matter of great surprise as to how the petitioner could repeatedly seek adjournments for leading the evidence on one pretext or the other when he deliberately had not intended to lead evidence before the trial Court and the trial Court had shut its eyes to the callous attitude of the petitioner instead of strictly dealing with the petitioner who deserved no leniency at all.