Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Seema Goel and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Rahul Gupta and Anr. - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1892 of 2016
Decided On : 01-04-2016
Article 227 - Eviction Suit - The court refused to set aside the judgment and orders rejecting the application to recall the order of closing evidence, as the defendants were found to be adopting dilatory tactics and not cooperating with the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was filed against the defendants. Despite being substituted for their deceased mother, the defendants did not file any additional written statement and sought multiple opportunities for the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants were not cooperating with the trial court and were adopting dilatory tactics, and thus dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was the defendants' failure to file additional written statement and evidence, and their attempt to recall the order of closing evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the defendants' lack of cooperation and dilatory tactics, as well as their failure to provide justification for interfering with the orders passed by the lower courts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the lower court to make an endeavor to decide the suit within a month, giving the defendants a last opportunity to extend their arguments.
Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. –
Heard Shri. Murli Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is with the prayer to set aside the judgment and orders dated 17.11.2015 and 20.1.2016 passed by the court below in rejecting application 99-C filed by the defendants-petitioners. It appears that the suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was filed by the plaintiff-respondents against Smt. Malti Agarwal, mother of the petitioners. The defendant Smt. Malti Agarwal died on 25.3.2014 during the pendency of the suit and the petitioners were substituted being her daughters. Despite having been substituted, they did not file any additional written statement rather sought time from the Court below. The records indicates that five dates was fixed for filing additional written statement and last opportunity was granted to the petitioners on 17.9.2015 for the purpose. They did not file a written statement and, therefore, 28.10.2014 was fixed evidence. The evidence of plaintiff was concluded on 15.11.2015 however the petitioners/defendants did not file their evidence on the next date fixed rather moved application for grant of time to file additional written statement.
3. This application was rejected vide order dated 6.5.2015 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 39820 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as misconceived petition by detailed order dated 12.8.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application 99-C on 3.11.2015 with the prayer to recall the order of closing evidence of the defendant. The application 99-C dated 3.11.2015 is on record as annexure 4' to this petition and finds place at page 25 of the paper book. The affidavit accompanying the said application is not brought on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders impugned submits that a serious dispute regarding ownership/title to the suit property was raised by the defendant namely Smt. Malti Agarwal in her categorical assertion in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by her that she was inducted in the suit property by way of rent note dated 15.10.1984 and that she was paying rent to Public Charitable Trust namely Shri. Mahabeer Ji Maharaj Virajman Jain Shwetambar Mandir, Purani Pasrath, Jhansi.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that by means of the application 99-C, the applicants-petitioners want to bring on record the rent note dated 15.8.1984 which could not be filed by their mother i.e. defendant namely Smt. Malti Agarwal. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not substantiated from the record. A perusal of the application 99-C indicates that only prayer made is to recall the order of closer of evidence. After 6.5.2015 again on 25.5.2015, time was granted to the defendants-petitioners to file their evidence by 30.5.2015 but this opportunity was not availed and, therefore, his evidence was closed on 30.5.2015 and not on 6.5.2015. Further the revisional Court has recorded that the defendants/petitioners were not co-operating with the conclusion of trial of the SCC Court and were adopting dilatory tactics on one or other pretext. The argument of plaintiff was completed on 16.7.2015, despite opportunity granted to the defendants they did not extended their arguments thereafter.
6. Further from a perusal of order dated 12.8.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 39820 of 2015, it is apparent that the petitioners though had approach this Court earlier but at no point of time they had stated either before this Court or before the trial Court that they want to file the rent note dated 15.10.1984 in evidence.
7. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below.
8. Lastly Ms. Rama Goyal Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit is pending since 2011 and
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
