Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. There are some litigants who are persistent in abuse of the process of law. This petition is filed by one petitioner who is a defendant in the suit for possession and who insists on flaunting orders which have been passed by different learned Single Judges of this Court directing early disposal of the suit for possession by filing frivolous applications causing delay in the disposal of the suit.

2. Firstly, I must state that one petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be filed against various orders dated 3.12.2013, 20.7.2013 and 3.4.2014 because in one petition separate orders cannot be challenged arising out of dismissal of different applications. First application under Section 151 CPC to stay the suit was dismissed by the first order dated 20.7.2013. Again another application was filed under Section 10 CPC for similar relief which was dismissed by the second order dated 03.12.2013. The third order dated 3.4.2014 is the order by which the review application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the orders dated 3.12.2013 and 20.7.2013 has been dismissed.

3. Before turning to the merits, I would state that with respect to interim orders which were passed in the suit, petitions were filed in this Court. In these petitions, directions have been issued by this Court for early disposal of the suit. One such order is the order passed about more than 4 years back on 27.10.2010 in CM(M) 1004/10 titled as Uma Gupta v. Sujata Gupta & Anr. and this order reads as under:

“The status report is received from the trial court. The same is perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments wants to withdraw the petition and requests that direction be issued to the learned trial court for expeditious disposal of the matter. The status report sent by the learned trial court shows that the case is now listed for the respondent/defendant’s evidence and two dates are given for the said purpose. It is hoped that the trial court will expedite the hearing in the matter and will dispose it of at the earliest. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.”

4. Another order is an order dated 12.5.2011 passed in CM(M) No. 1399/2010 filed by the present petitioner and which was disposed of in terms of the following order:-

“The challenge by means of this petition is to the impugned order dated 7.10.2010 which closed the right of the petitioner of cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff. Purely as humanitarian consideration, counsel for the respondent agrees that one last final opportunity, subject to costs, may be granted and if that opportunity is not utilized, the petitioner should have no further opportunity. Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 12,500/-, let the Trial Court fix a date for cross-examination of PW1 to Pw4 and it is made clear that if the cross-examination is not completed on that date or any further date which the Trial Court grants, or for any reason whatsoever any request for adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner in the Trial Court, the right of cross-examination given by today’s order will stand closed. I am informed that before the Trial Court case is already listed on 18.7.2011. Let this date be the first date on which cross-examination of PW1 to PW4 can be commenced. The petitioner will summon PW3 and PW4, who are official witnesses for the date fixed for their cross-examination. Petitioner agrees to cooperate so as to bring about expeditious disposal of the suit. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

Petitioner to file appropriate application before the Trial Court pursuant to the present order so that the witnesses can be summoned and the present order can be brought to the notice of the Trial Court. Dasti.”

5. The third order is passed in CM(M) No. 457/2014 on 5.5.2014 and which reads as under :-

“The petitioner is aggrieved by slow progress of the suit. He requests that the direction be issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document