SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent no.3 ? Mohd. Naeem filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 against petitioners which was dismissed. Against the said judgment and order respondent no.3 filed Rent Appeal no.19 of 2003. In the said appeal petitioners filed application for inspection through Advocate Commissioner which was rejected by lower appellate court on 30.4.2007. Against the said order writ petition no.22483 of 2007 was filed which was disposed of by me on 19.12.2007. Through the said order, I directed that appeal should be decided very expeditiously and in case against the final judgment passed in the appeal writ petition was filed in this court then petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the correctness of order dated 30.4.2007 also in the said writ petition.
(2.) THEREAFTER petitioners filed regular suit against respondent no.3 being O.S. No.993 of 2008 and applied for commission in the said suit. Application was allowed and Commissioner submitted a report which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter in the Rent Appeal petitioners filed an application that the said Commissioner report might be taken on record. Appellate court through order dated 1.8.2009 rejected the said application in view of my earlier order dated 19.12.2007. Said order has been challenged through this writ petition. It is quite clear that petitioners want to unduly delay the proceedings of appeal.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is dismissed and it is directed that appeal shall be decided very expeditiously. Absolutely no un-necessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If the court below is inclined to grant any adjournment in any form to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs.500/- per adjournment.;