Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS case illustrates horrible State of affairs. Suit for eviction filed by landlord against the tenant in the year 1985 was decreed ex -parte after 9 years i.e. in the year 1994. Restoration application filed by the tenant -petitioner in 1994 was decided in another 9 years i.e. in the year 2003 by Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly. Among all the private disputes, the disputes between landlord -tenant deserve to be decided more expeditiously. District Judge, Bareilly is directed to send a list of all those Rent Control matters which are pending before any Court (J.S.C.C. or A.D.J.) for more than 5 years for being placed on the file of this case. A copy of the said list shall also be directly sent to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of Bareilly. S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1985 filed by landlord -respondent No. 3 Chhotey Miyan and others against original tenant Niraley Miyan since deceased and survived by petitioners, was decreed ex -parte on 25.1.1994 by Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly. Petitioners filed restoration application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. They were required to deposit the entire decreetal amount or furnish security in respect thereof, if permitted by the Trial Court, in view of provisions of section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Instead the petitioners deposited only an amount of Rs. 1774/ - and furnished security for an equal amount as permitted by J.S.C.C.
(2.) IT may be mentioned here that defence of the petitioners had also been struck off on 29.7.1991. Petitioners were permitted to deposit half of the decreetal amount in cash and security in respect of rest half. Decreetal amount means amount due under the ex -parte decree till the date when restoration application is filed. The said amount comes to more than Rs. 10,000/ -. The total amount, which was deposited and in respect of which security was furnished comes to about Rs. 3,500/ -, which was almost 1/3rd of the required amount. In view of that deficiency Trial Court/Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly held that provisions of section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act had not been complied with. Restoration application was, therefore, dismissed on 12.9.2003 without expressing any opinion regarding cause of absence on the date when the suit was decreed ex -parte. The said order was challenged through S.C.C. Revision No. 39 of 2003. Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly dismissed the said revision on 21.7.2005. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition. This petition itself has been filed after 6 months from the date of last challenged order.
(3.) A bare resume of the above facts shows that the petitioners are guilty of laches.;