2014 Supreme(Raj) 685
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Mohan Lal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Narayan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19766 of 2013.
Decided On : 2-01-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner-Plaintiff:Krishan Sharma, Advocate.
The right to file a suit entails the right to have it decided within a reasonable time, and inordinate delay in disposal of cases cannot be justified by the right to move various applications.
Headnote:
Delay in Disposal of Eviction Petition - Right to Speedy Disposal of Cases - The court directed the eviction suit pending before the trial court to be disposed of within a period of one year from the presentation of a certified copy of the order, emphasizing the right to speedy disposal of cases and limiting adjournments to only those with valid reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The suit for eviction had been pending for over ten years, with the plaintiff's evidence completed in 2012 and the defendant stalling the suit with frivolous applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it unfortunate that the eviction suit had been pending for such a long time, emphasizing the right to move various applications but not at the cost of inordinate delay. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the eviction suit within a year and limited adjournments to only those with valid reasons.
Issues: Delay in disposal of eviction petition, right to speedy disposal of cases, abuse of process through frivolous applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to file a suit entails the right to have it decided within a reasonable time. Inordinate delay in disposal of cases cannot be justified by the right to move various applications.
Final Decision: The court directed the trial court to dispose of the eviction suit within a year and limited adjournments to only those with valid reasons.
JUDGMENT
1. - The only prayer in the present petition is that the suit for eviction pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the trial court') be directed to be disposed of expeditiously. Counsel has submitted that the said suit is pending for the last over ten years and the plaintiff's evidence had been completed on 9.10.2012. He submits that since then the defendant on one count or another have avoided bringing their evidence on record and are stalling the suit by filing frivolous applications, last of which was filed on 9.1.2013 under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC. Counsel submits that even the said application had not been decided for the last about one year.
2. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the petition.
3. It is unfortunate that a suit for eviction has been kept pending for the last above ten years. The dockets in trial courts are indeed crowded. It is also no doubt true that the parties to the suit have a right to move various applications as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if circumstances so warrant. That however, cannot be a licence for inordinate delay of disposal of an eviction petition. A right to exist has to be a right capable of being effectuated. Where there is a right to file a suit, there also obtains a concomitant right to have it decided within reasonable time.
4. Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case, I would direct that the eviction pending before Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur be disposed of within a period of one year from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. Adjournment for the mere asking should not be granted. When any request is made for an adjournment it should be only entertained on an application in writing with reasons set out. The trial court may thereupon adjourn the matter as warranted only for good reason/s.
5. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Disposed of.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
