( 1 ) PETITIONER by this revision petition has assailed an order dt. 15-9-1997, by which the Civil Judge dismissed the petitioner s application under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as the application under Order XVIII, Rule 17a of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being given yet another opportunity to lead additional evidence.

( 2 ) MR. Raivnder Sethi, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. V. P. Sharma, Advocate, have appeared for the respondent/caveator. Counsel for both the parties have filed their list of dates and synopsis and with the consent of the parties the hearing of the revision petition was taken up.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court had erred in framing issue No. 3, viz. "whether the plaintiff is tenant in respect of the land in dispute". At the outset, it may be noticed that the Trial Court has corrected this to read, "whether the defendant is a tenant in respect of the land in dispute?" Mr. S. K. Bagga. learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that it was his case that there were structures on the land and the tenancy comprised not only the land but the structure as well. The said plea/objection would be covered by another issue framed as under:

"whether the suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act?"it was open to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his plea that the tenancy was in respect of land with building, thereby falling within the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act and barring a civil suit under section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the challenge to the impugned order in this regard.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the suit was instituted in 1980, the evidence of the petitioner commenced only on 28th August, 1991. The respondent attributes this delay to the dilatory tactics of the petitioner. Mr. Bagga also referred to the order dt. 26-5-1992, by which the petitioner s evidence was confined to petitioner himself and the court debarred him from leading evidence of any other witness. He submitted that this order was unwarranted and caused great prejudice to the petitioner, who has undergone a lot of misery on account of his illness and was hospitalised for extended periods of time. Petitioner had even suffered loss of memory and in the interest of substantial justice, petitioner ought to be granted yet another opportunity for leading evidence of other witnesses. Mr. Bagga submits that there would be no further delay in recording the statement of witness and the petitioner ought to be granted one more last opportunity.

( 5 ) NORMALLY, on a plea like this, I have been persuaded to grant yet another opportunity, subject to terms. However, this case represents a classic example of how the legal process can be subverted and abused by adopting dilatory tactics machinations and legal stratagems. A brief recapitulation of what has transpired in this case is called for:

(I) Petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 1977 seeking a restraint on the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from a plot of land with wooden khokha. The suit was filed on the ground that petitioner was a tenant. Respondent claims that he accepted the same with a view to avoid delay and failed a suit for possession after terminating the tenancy. (ii) Issue were framed in the suit in the year 1982 and evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was led on 30-8-1985. The order sheet is writ large with adjournments. All the available techniques in the armory of a Civil Lawyer were used, commencing from amendment of pleadings and on amendments being disallowed, filing of revisions petitions; application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rules 11 Code of Civil Procedure, amendment of issues and petitioner failing to appear resulting in ex parte proceedings which are eventually set aside. (iii) Adjournments were s