IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.1536 of 2007
BHAKT RADHA MOHAN
Versus
HAZIN BIBI KHAIRUN NISSA & ANR
With
C.R. No.982 of 2008
BHAKT RADHA MOHAN
Versus
HAZIN BIBI KHEIRUN NISSA & ANR
-----------
2 11.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the defendant tenant petitioner.
The present cases are a classic example of abuse of
process of the Court at the instance of the petitioner.
The petitioner in the first civil revision application C.R.
No. 1536/2007 has assailed the impugned order of the Court
below dated 5.7.2007 whereby and whereunder the petition
filed by him in an eviction suit under B.B.C. Act seeking recall
of the witnesses of plaintiff landlord opposite party for their
cross examination, has been rejected.
The Court below has in fact analyzed the whole aspect
of the matter in great detail in the impugned order and after
its perusal, this Court can only say that no civil litigation can
come to an end till a litigating party has ultimately decided to
call it a day. This is apparent from the fact that despite
repeated indulgence given by the Court below to the Counsel
for the defendant-petitioner, he did not choose to cross-
examine p.ws. 3, 4 & 5 till the date, the evidence of the
2
plaintiff was closed. The Court below in this regard has
referred to the order dated 9.3.2005, 10.3.2005, 11.3.2005,
16.3.2005 and 17.3.2005 to support its view that the
defendant-petitioner before this Court was purposely delaying
the disposal of the suit. He has also referred to the fact that
against an order dated 9.3.2005 of the court below, the
petitioner had moved this Court in civil revision application
no. 651/2005 and there also this Court in its order had
recorded that the petitioner was purposely delaying the
disposal of the suit.
From a perusal of a copy of the order dated 8.4.2005
passed in Civil Revision Application No. 651/2005 such
delaying tactics of the petitioner is itself established in as
much on the earlier occasion this court had been constrained
to observe and record that :-
“…………After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusing the materials on
record, it is quite clear that the Eviction Suit had
been filed as far back as on 12.2.2001
whereafter the defendant-petitioner had
appeared on 2.3.2001 and filed his written
statement on 31.5.2001 and since then the
Eviction Suit is pending for disposal and it was
only after about three years that the issues were
settled on 23.3.2004. Even thereafter the matter
was delayed and only when this Court, vide
order dated 31.1.2005 passed in Civil Revision
No. 1660 of 2004, directed the learned court
3below to expedite the disposal of the Eviction Suit
that the hearing of the suit started. But thereafter
the defendant-petitioner raised an objection
against admission of documents filled in the court
as far back as on 24.7.2004. It is also clear that
the evidence of the plaintiffs have already been
closed
It is apparent from the materials on record
that the defendant-petitioner is using all means
to delay the disposal of the suit due to which the
learned court below is facing difficulty to expedite
the disposal of the suit as per earlier order of this
Court. This would be apparent from the fact that
the defendant has submitted a list of ninetyfive
witnesses and the type of witnesses he wants to
depose on his behalf would be apparent from the
fact that the first person on the list is the counsel
appearing for the plaintiffs………..”
This Court would find that even thereafter a lapse of two
years the petitioner and/or his counsel had continued with
the same delaying approach and the prayer by the petitioner
to recall the witness of the plaintiff after closure of evidence of
the petitioner was a deliberate attempt to forestall the
proceedings of an eviction suit under B.B.C. Act. It is really
unfortunate to note that even the counsel for the petitioner
has become party to such delaying tactics and his proximity
with the petitioner has crossed all norms of professional
etiquette in as much as he has cited himself to be first of 95
witnesses on behalf of the defendant petitioner. This Court
4
would refrain from making any comment on the conduct of
the counsel for the petitioner but would definitely remind him
that he belongs to a noble profession which requires him to
withdraw from a case in which he finds his professional and
personal interest overlapping each other. Be that it may the
impugned order refusing to recall the witnesses of the plaintiff
for the reasons mentioned therein does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error and consequently this court would find no
reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 5.7.2007.
It has to be noted that after being unsuccessful in two
earlier civil revision applications before this Court namely
Civil Revision Application No. 1660/2004 disposed of on
31.1.2005 directing the Court below to expedite the hearing of
the suit and Civil Revision Application No. 651/2005, yet
again directing the Court below by an order dated 8.4.2005 to
expedite the disposal of the suit without allowing unnecessary
delaying the matter, the present civil revision application
against the order dated 5.7.2007 was filed on 30.7.2007 and
no attempt was made for early hearing of this case C.R. no.
1536/2007 and when the Court below had rejected the prayer
of the defendant petitioner by an order dated 28.4.2008
refusing any further adjournment on the ground of pendency
of C.R. 1536 of 2007, after awaiting the order of this Court in
Civil Revision Application No. 1536/2007 for almost one year,
the petitioner has filed the second Civil Revision application
5
assailing the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.4.2008 which
is the subject matter of Civil Revision Application No.
982/2008. The reasons given therein for not adjourning the
hearing of the Eviction Suit are wholly justified and in keeping
with the spirit of summary trial under B.B.C. Act. Thus court
does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order
dated 28.04.2008 and thus even this Civil Revision
application must be held to be wholly frivolous, filed with the
same aim and objective to keep the eviction suit pending for
ever.
This court would also find that Eviction Suit, being
of the year 2001 has not yet been disposed of despite repeated
direction of this Court in the orders dated 31.01.2005 and
08.04.2005 in Civil Revision Application No. 1660/2004 and
Civil Revision Application No. 651/2005. In such
circumstances, this Court while dismissing the
aforementioned both the civil revision applications would
direct the Court below to take up the hearing on day-to-day
basis and to ensure that the suit itself is disposed of within a
period of six months from the date of receipt/production of
copy of this order.
Having regard to the conduct of the defendant-
petitioner, this Court had proposed to impose an exemplary
cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be realized from the defendant for his
dubious conduct in delaying the disposal of the eviction suit
6
for a period of more than seven years but keeping in view the
request of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a
poor tenant and would be compelled to abandon the suit itself
instead of praying the cost of Rs. 25,000/-, this court by way
of its disapproval of the conduct of the petitioner would award
a cost of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff
opposite party within a period of three months from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order and a receipt
showing payment of cost to be filed by the petitioner in the
court below.
With the aforesaid observations and directions both the
Civil Revision applications are dismissed.
Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)