Patna High Court - Orders
Mostt.Gita Sharma @ Mostt.Geeta Devi @ ... vs Radha Rani Sharma & Ors on 4 August, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.1104 of 2009
Mostt. Gita Sharma @ Mostt. Geeta Devi @ Geeta Devi, wife of Late
Raj Kumar Sharma, resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, Raju Sah Lane,
Sonarpatti, Ward No.21 (New), 17 (Old) P.O. Ramna, P.S. Muzaffarpur
(Town), District. Muzaffarpur. ............Defendant-Petitioner.
Versus
1. Radha Rani Sharma, wife of Late Lakshmi Narain Sharma
2. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, son of Late Lakshmi Narain Sharma
......Plaintiffs-Opposite parties 1st set.
3. Ashok Kumar Sharma, son of Late Lakshmi Narain Sharma,
All residents of Mohalla Purani Bazar, Raju Sah Lane, Sonarpatti
Ward No.21 (New), 17 (Old), P.O. Ramna, P.S. Muzaffarpur
(Town), District Muzaffarpur.......Defendant-Opposite party 2nd set.
For the petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kuar, Advocate.
For the opposite parties : None.
-----------
02/ 04.08.2009Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 06.06.2009 by which the learned Munsif, East Muzaffarpur rejected her petition dated 03.06.2009 for recalling PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 for their cross-examination in Eviction Suit No.38 of 2005.
3. The aforesaid eviction suit was filed by opposite party 1st set for eviction of the defendants, including the petitioner, from the suit premises which was a house on the ground of personal necessity. Defendant no.1-petitioner appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiffs.
4. It transpires that an interlocutory application under section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) was filed by the plaintiffs for payment of arrears of rent as 2 well as current rent, which was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 13.08.2007, against which the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.1995 of 2007, which was ultimately dismissed by a Bench of this court on 04.02.2009.
5. It further transpires that in absence of any order of stay from the High Court, the learned trial court passed an order dated 03.01.2008 striking off the defence of the defendants against their ejectment due to non-compliance of order passed under section 15 of the Act. The said order was also challenged by the defendant no.1-petitioner in Civil Revision No.343 of 2008, which was disposed of by a Bench of this court vide order dated 06.02.2009 (Annexure-1) with the following terms and conditions:
" (i) The defendant-petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/-(five thousand) as cost within thirty days from the date of this order, which the plaintiff-opposite party shall be allowed to withdraw irrespective of the result of the suit;
(ii) The defendant-petitioner shall deposit the entire dues as required under order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the court below within forty five days. Failing compliance of either of conditions (i) and (ii) aforesaid, the impugned order dated 03.01.2008 shall be restored;
(iii) The court below thereafter shall conduct the trial of the suit concerned on day-to-
day basis and conclude the same and pronounce the judgment preferably within a period of six months.
It is made clear that the court below shall reject any prayer made by either of the parties, which may be made for the purposes of adjournment of the case except the most reasonable ones."
3
6. Learned counsel for defendant no.1-petitioner submits before this court that the said order of this court dated 06.02.2009 could not be complied within time as he learnt about the said order late, whereafter he applied for its certified copy on 20.02.2009, which was received by him on 04.03.2009. This excuse of learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be reasonable as, even if, according to him he received certified copy of the said order of this court on 04.03.2009 still there were some days left for compliance of the said order dated 06.02.2009, but in spite of that neither the said order was complied nor any application was filed in the said civil revision for extension of time.
7. It further transpires that even thereafter no step was taken by defendant no.1-petitioner in the learned court below and argument started on 06.05.2009 and continued for several dates and only thereafter on 03.06.2009 defendant no.1-petitioner filed an application in the learned court below for recall of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 for their cross-examination, which was rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 06.06.2009.
8. The said application of defendant no.1-petitioner appears to be quite frivolous and merely a dilatory ploy as no such step was taken earlier, although there was sufficient opportunity for him, because the evidence of those PWs. were adduced much earlier. The learned court below also considered the fact that in view of the specific order of this court dated 06.02.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.343 of 2008 the eviction suit had to be decided within a 4 period of six months from the said date i.e. 06.02.2009 and hence there was no occasion for allowing such frivolous prayer of the defendant after the arguments had been substantially heard.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, the learned court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the said eviction suit within the time prescribed by a Bench of this court vide order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.343 of 2008.
harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )