( 1 ) THE facts of the case, as they appear from the appeal paper book, clearly point to various afflictions in our justice delivery system. Firstly, chronic delays - a simple suit for recovery of possession of immovable property was instituted in 1989 and it is still pending. Secondly, unnecessary adjournments - not a single witness turned up for the Respondents between December, 1998 and April, 2001 despite a dozen opportunities. Finally, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations - this time against a respectable lawyer for the Respondents. Expressing his pain and anguish in a written response dated 7th December, 2001 submitted to the Trial Court, the lawyer requests the Court:

". . . to pass appropriate orders in the matter as it would be in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of process of law and the court so that the litigant does not take the court or the counsel for a ride and does not get the liberty to make any statement, be it a white lie or be it at the costs of reputation of counsel, just to make a gain for himself/ herself. "

( 2 ) THE Appellants filed a suit in April, 1989 (later numbered as Suit No. 52/93) for recovery of possession of the front half portion of property bearing No. C-25, Friends Colony, New Delhi. According to the Appellants, the suit property was in the tenancy of the Respondents and their tenancy was determined by a notice to quit dated 9th February, 1989 effective on the expiry of the tenancy month on 31st March, 1989.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the Respondents who raised various defences, including that the tenancy was not validly terminated and also claiming protection of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

( 4 ) SOME time in 1993, issues were framed in the suit and in 1996 additional issues were framed on the basis of amended pleadings. The oral evidence of the Appellants concluded in September, 1998 and thereafter proceedings were adjourned from time to time for recording the oral evidence of the Respondents, which was not readily forthcoming.

( 5 ) ULTIMATELY, it appears that discussions were held between the parties to amicably resolve their disputes, and so the order sheet for 20th January, 2001 records as follows:

"pr. Cl. for Parties. At joint request put up on 8. 2. 2001 for compromise. "

( 6 ) THE order sheet of 23rd May, 2001 is important and this records as under: "pr: Sh. B. Khan, cl. for pltf. with pltfs. Sh. Dinesh Garg, Adv. for all the defdts. In both cases. It is stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties. The defdts. undertakes to vacate the suit premises by 22. 1. 02 and will keep on paying the rent/damages of the suit premises @ Rs. 4800/- w. e. f. 1. 5. 2001, till the time of vacation of the suit premises. Statement of Sh. Dinesh Garg, Adv. for the defdts w. O. I have instructions on behalf of the defdts to make the present statement that the defdts undertake to vacate the suit premises by 22. 1. 2002 and will keep on paying the rent/damages @ Rs. 4800/- w. e. f. 1. 5. 2001, till the vacation of the suit premises. The rent upto 30. 4. 2001 already stands paid. sd/- sd/- r. O. A. C. C. J. Statement of Sh. B. Khan, cl. for both the pltfs. W. O i have instructions on behalf of pltfs to make the present statement that in view of the statement made by the cl. for the defdt, on behalf of the defdts, the suit may kindly be disposed off accordingly. I accept the terms of the st. of cl. for defdts. The pltfs are also present today in the court and will counter-sign this statement. sd/- sd/- r. O. A. C. C. J.

( 7 ) ON the same day, the learned Civil Judge passed the following order: "order in view of the st. made by the cl. for parties in the presence of both the pltfs. The suit stands disposed off as settled. Parties to be bound by their statements made today. File be consigned to R/r. Decree sheet in terms of said comp. be prepared. Sd/- (Savita Rao) c. J. Delhi 23/5/01

( 8 ) THEREAFTER, there was some minor prob