Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) IT is rather disturbing that a landlord tenant matter in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 33 of 1994 is pending for 13 years before J.S.C.C. Muzaffar Nagar. In the suit filed by landlord respondent, tenant petitioner raised objection of valuation. His objection was accepted. Thereafter, the landlord applied for amendment in the plaint in the light of the order passed by the Court accepting the objections pertaining to valuation raised by the tenant defendant. The said amendment was allowed by the Trial Court through order dated 10.4.2002. The said order was subjected to S.C.C. Revision No. 21 of 2007. Incharge District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar dismissed the revision on 17.7.2007, hence this writ petition.
(2.) I do not find absolutely any error in the impugned orders. Valuation was enhanced on the objection of the tenant, hence it was absolutely essential to amend the plaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that relief for recovery of water tax from 1.2.1990 to 11.2.1993 has been added through the amendment in the plaint. However, as the suit was filed on 3.8.1994, hence relief for recovery of water tax since before 3.8.1991 was time barred. Let this aspect be considered by J.S.C.C. while deciding the suit finally.
(3.) IT is further directed that J.S.C.C. shall make all efforts to decide the suit very expeditiously. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If 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. 500/ - per adjournment.;