S.U.Khan - (1.) -This is an utterly frivolous writ petition. Petitioners defendants are not allowing S.C.C. Suit No. 88 of 1996 to be decided. This is a landlord tenant matter, according to the plaintiff. Earlier, defendants filed an application under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for return of plaint for filing before regular civil court as according to them question of title was involved. On the said application, an order was passed on 8.7.2004 to the effect that the said question would be considered after conclusion of evidence. Thereafter, landlady respondent examined herself. After her examination, defendants petitioners again filed application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was rejected by J.S.C.C., Meerut on 3.5.2007. Against the said order S.C.C. Revision No. 31 of 2007 was filed, which has also been dismissed by Incharge District Judge, Meerut through order dated 17.7.2007, hence this writ petition.
(2.) ORDER dated 8.7.2004 was never challenged. In view of the said order, it was not open to the defendants to file another application before conclusion of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners clearly admits that evidence of defendants has not yet commenced. The intention of the defendants appears quite clear that they do not want to allow the suit to be decided. Probably, the tenants are waiting for the moment when patience of the landlady exhausts, she loses faith in the judicial system and contacts house mafias to get the house in dispute vacated. This is not an imaginary scenario, it is actually happening. Recently, Supreme Court has orally observed that in view of recent happenings of lynching of people in Bihar, the judiciary must do some introspection and adopt the measures of quick dispensation of justice. First two sentences of today's editorial of newspaper Hindustan Times, Lucknow, are quoted below : "A Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday gave ample evidence that the judiciary, at least at the higher level, is not blind to its own limitations or faults. It bravely took responsibility for the rising incidents of mob justice in the country by attributing it to the fact that people were fast losing faith in the Courts due to long delays in the disposal of cases." In the same editorial it has also been mentioned that 2.5 crore cases are pending before District and Subordinate Courts and about 37 lacs before High Courts. Rushing to High Court against every interim order is bound to add to these astronomical figures.
(3.) WRIT petition is dismissed. J.S.C.C., Meerut is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously preferably within four months from the date of production of copy of this order before him. Absolutely, no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If trial court is inclined to grant any adjournment to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 750 per adjournment.;