ORDER :

1. “Man lives in the short run, but litigation lives in long run.”, [Justice Krishna Iyer]

2. The instant case is a glaring example of misuse of the process of law where adjournments are consistently sought by both the sides since last more than forty years for recording their evidence and still the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) in the year 1981 is at the stage of recording the evidence of the defendants. The present case is a typical illustration of miscarriage of justice where the suit filed in the year 1981 has rolled as far about half a century i.e. 43 years.

3. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was submitted by the petitioners against the defendants (respondents) before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgarh, District Alwar (for short “the SDO”) on 06.07.1981.

4. An application was submitted by the petitioners for appointment of ‘Receiver’ and the same was allowed by the SDO vide order dated 02.12.1981 and the Tehsildar, Rajgarh (Alwar) was appointed as ‘Receiver’ with the direction to take possession of the land in question and auction the same for the purpose of cultivation.

5. Against the order dated 02.12.1981, the defendants submitted an appeal before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (for short “the RAA”) and the same was allowed on 05.11.1985 and the order of appointment of Receiver was quashed. The aforesaid order was further upheld by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short “the Board”) vide order dated 23.10.1986.

6. All the above orders were challenged by the petitioners before this Court by way of filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5814/1999 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2002 and with the consent of both the parties, a direction was issued to the SDO to decide the suit within a period of five months.

7. Thereafter, the petitioners closed their evidence on 27.05.2003 and the case was posted for recording evidence of the defendants and till date the stage of the suit is for recording the evidence of the defendants inspite of passing of more than 20 years.

8. In the meantime, the suit was transferred to the Court of SDO, Reni, District Alwar on 13.08.2019 and the same is still subjudice for want of recording the evidence of the defendants. It is worthy to note here that the order/directions issued by this Court on 13.09.2002 for disposal of the suit within five months have not been complied with by the SDO even after passing of more than 20 years i.e. more than two decades.

9. At this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court, by knocking the doors of this Court, again by way of filing the present writ petition, seeking direction against the SDO, Reni, District Alwar to decide the suit expeditiously as early as possible, within a stipulated time of six months.

10. Pendency of the instant suit since last more than 43 years i.e. since 06.07.1981 and repeated adjournments for one reason or the other, amounts to miscarriage of justice and is against the concept of speedy disposal of the cases. The instant case is a glaring case where the petitioners took a time of two decades to complete their evidence and closed the same on 27.05.2003 and thereafter, the defendants are regularly seeking time to produce their evidence since last more than twenty years. Both the plaintiffs/petitioners and the defendants/respondents are responsible for the delay caused in disposal of the suit. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the CPC”). Concept of seeking countless adjournments has grown up like a cancer corroding the entire body of the judicial system.

11. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure & pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be lead in and when the matter should be heard. The parties to the suit – either the plaintiff or the defendant are expected to cooperate with the