Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Sharat Sood - Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Patiyal and others - Respondents
CMPMO No. 483 of 2024
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 7 - Rent Control Act - Eviction proceedings - The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of eviction proceedings against the respondents, who adopted dilatory tactics, resulting in numerous adjournments and delays in the Rent Controller's actions. The court emphasized the need for timely justice and diligence in proceedings, stating that repeated adjournments undermine the justice delivery system. (Paras 10, 11, 14)
(B) Justice Delivery System - The court highlighted the detrimental effects of routine adjournments on litigants' trust in the justice system, urging a change in work culture to ensure efficient justice dispensation. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a rent petition for eviction on 23.05.2023, which faced delays due to the respondents' absence and subsequent applications to set aside ex parte orders. The court noted the mechanical granting of adjournments and the need for timely action.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that the Rent Controller should not grant unnecessary adjournments and expedite the case's disposal.
Issues: The main issues included the impact of dilatory tactics on justice delivery and the need for timely action by the Rent Controller.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the justice delivery system must avoid routine adjournments to maintain litigants' trust and ensure timely justice.
Result: Petition stands disposed of with directions for expeditious proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Case registration No. 79 of 2023 (Rent Case/1450/2023 CNR No.:HPSH120014282023) for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the record.
3. A rent petition seeking eviction of the respondents in the case at hand has been filed by the present petitioner. The rent petition in the case at hand was filed on 23.05.2023. Office report in the same was done on 26.05.2023. Thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents for 11.07.2023. On account of incessant rain on 11.07.2023, there was a holiday. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 28.08.2023, on which date, respondents though served, had not put in an appearance, hence were proceeded against ex parte.
4. Subsequent thereto, the matter was listed for recording of ex parte evidence of the petitioner/landlord on 02.11.2023. Statements of a few witnesses of the petitioners were recorded on 02.11.2023. Appropriate steps for service of one witness (Manager UCO Bank) who despite service was not present were taken on the said date. On the next date fixed for recording of the evidence i.e. 02.12.2023, petitioner’s evidence was closed and the case was ordered to be listed on 22.12.2023. On the said date, ex parte arguments were heard and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 18.01.2024.
5. However, when the matter was taken up on 18.01.2024, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by respondent No.1 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 28.08.2023. Only with the intent of an expeditious disposal of the Rent Petition filed by the present petitioner, no objection was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord and, therefore, the ex parte order dated 28.08.2023 was recalled. Time was granted to respondent No.1 to file reply to the petition. The matter was thereafter listed on 27.02.2024.
6. Time to file reply was granted to respondent No.1 on 27.02.2024, 28.03.2024, 10.04.2024, 29.04.2024, 06.06.2024. On 06.06.2024, time was granted to respondent No.1 to file reply subject to payment of costs. The matter was then posted on 14.06.2024. It is only on 14.06.2024 that reply on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed. The matter was then fixed for filing of rejoinder and for framing of issues on 25.07.2024. Rejoinder was filed on 25.07.2024 and framing of issues was deferred to 21.09.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.11.2024, 05.12.2024. On 05.12.2024 issues were framed and the matter was fixed for recording of evidence of the present petitioner/landlord on 10.01.2025. On 10.01.2025, the Presiding Officer was not present, hence the matter was now posted for 11.04.2025.
7. The dilatory tactics on the part of the respondents/tenants before the Rent Controller are writ large from the daily order sheets of the Rent Controller placed on record. On 28.08.2023, on which date, respondents though served, had not put in an appearance, hence were proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter ex-parte proceedings in the absence of the respondents continued. Evidence of the petitioner was recorded ex-parte, final arguments were heard, however when the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment on 18.01.2024, miraculously respondent No.1 appeared and sought setting aside of order dated 28.08.2023 whereby the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte. It is evident that after having been proceeded ex-parte, respondent No.1 was keeping a watch on the proceedings before the Rent Controller in the case at hand. The respondent No.1 in order to set at naught the entire proceedings threw the spanner in the works by moving an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside of order dated 28.08.2023, whereby the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte at a stage when the matter had been fixed for pronouncement of judgement. Participation in the proceedings was sought since 28.08.2
The court emphasized the necessity for timely justice and the detrimental impact of routine adjournments on the justice delivery system.
Repeated adjournments in civil proceedings undermine the justice delivery system, and courts must enforce timely action to maintain public confidence.
Repeated adjournments in civil proceedings must be justified; courts should not grant them routinely to ensure timely justice.
The court condemns the misuse of adjournments and emphasizes the importance of timely justice delivery. It calls for a change in work culture to discourage unnecessary adjournments and maintain the r....
The court held that a Rent Controller must allow applications for document admission before assessing their relevance, prioritizing fair trial over procedural delays.
The right to lead defence evidence is fundamental, but repeated failures to present evidence can justify the closure of that right to ensure timely justice.
Point of law: Equality before law implies an absence of any special privilege. So does equal protection of laws by ensuring equality of treatment among people in similar circumstances.
The right to timely resolution of rent disputes is fundamental under Article 21, necessitating the Appellate Tribunal to adhere to statutory timelines for appeals to prevent undue hardship to landlor....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
