RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to respondent no.1, Prescribed Authority/VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra to decide P.A. Case No. 07 of 2009, Shri Ravi Kumar Agarwal versus Shri Rajesh Nanda within a specified time fixed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has sought a large number of adjournments as detailed in the writ petition only to harass him by delaying the matter from conclusion to its logical end. It is stated that the Court below has readily allowed these adjournments and is not deciding the case, hence the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer.
(3.) IF a party is frequently taking dates after dates to delay dispensation of justice there has to be a limit to such tactics adopted by a party. The Courts are not ex­pected to be a party to such tactics by readily giving adjournments in cases just for, the asking. The JSCC suits are required to be decided within six months as provided in the Small Causes Courts Act 1887 and within three months by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (UP. Act No. XIII of 1972). Frequent dates should not be given. The Courts have a responsibility to decide the case within the time which has been fixed by the legislation in its wisdom and they have to strive to decide the cases in the time limit so fixed. If they do not do so, it sets a bad precedent opening the Pandora's box for public criticism. Delay erodes the faith of the public in justice of system, hence care should be taken in this regard by the Courts.;