GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY this revision petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 9. 5. 2000, whereby,the case has been ordered to be put up on 4. 7. 2000. Suffice it to say that, this order does not amount to any "case decided" requiring interference by this Court u/s. 115 CPC. As such, the revision petition has no merit and rather is not maintainable, and is hereby dismissed summarily.
(2.) HOWEVER, vide order dated 24. 5. 2000, the learned trial court was directed to explain the circumstances as to why the matter is being prolonged so long when the provisional determination is to be made summarily after filing of the written statement, when the suit has been filed in the year 1992. The explanation has been received vide letter dated 30. 6. 2000, wherefrom, it is clear that the suit was filed on 13. 10. 92 and the written statement was filed on 24. 8. 93. Thereafter, according to the report, applications after applications have been filed whether for amendment of the written statement or under Order 11, Rule 16 CPC or under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC or under Order 6 Rule 5 or under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC or the like. Be that as it may. The fact thus remains that atleast since 13. 07. 1997, the matter is ripe for arguments and orders on the question of provisional determination of rent under Sec. 13 According to the report, since then case is being simply adjourned whether on the request of the learned counsel for the parties or on account of strike of the counsel or the like. One sentence is also mentioned by the learned Presiding Officer that the Court has over- burdened with the work. A perusal of the report does not leave a happy impression about the manner in which the trial of the case is proceeding. The matter of determination u/s. 13 (3) is not to be taken that lightly or that leisurely as if it was trial within trial. A look at Sec. 13 (3) would show that it is on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf, which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement, and shall be before framing of the issues, that the determination is to be made. Even if, the learned Presiding Officer was to stretch the period of three months to a reasonable extent, it could not be stretched in any case to the extent of around seven years (from 24. 8. 93 till the date), I need not say more and I think what I have already said above should be enough for the future guidance of the learned Presiding Officer. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith for the needful. It is hoped that now the learned trial court will expedite the trial of the suit so as to give some redress to the agony of the litigants. .;