ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by defendant- petitioner before this Court against the order, dated 15.5.1995 passed by Additional Munsif No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 426/80 whereby learned trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner on the grounds inter alia : (a) default in payment of arrears of rent, (b) substantial damage to the property, (c) subletting of the property, and (d) reasonable and bona fide necessity. Under the provisions of clauses (a), (b), (e) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950"). The eviction suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in the year 1980. The suit was dismissed in default and restored on 25.4.1989. The plaintiff completed and closed his evidence before the trial Court on 31.10.1992. Thereafter the suit was fixed for recording of evidence of the defendant on 4.1.1992 when no witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter the defendant sought several adjournments from the trial Court on one pretext or the other for leading his evidence but the evidence was not produced by the defendant till 15.5.1995 when the trial Court passed the impugned order directing the closure of the defendant's evidence, aggrieved by which this revision petition has been preferred to this Court by the defendant-petitioner. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that after the closure of the plaintiff's evidence on 31.10.1992, the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant's witnesses and on some occasions the Presiding Officer was on leave, while on other occasions the counsel was not present and as such the evidence could not be recorded. It has been further contended by the petitioner that 19.7.1993 was declared holiday and on 20.9.93 the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant on 27.9.93, when the petitioner had submitted an application under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. and the case was fixed for arguments on the stay application on 28.10.93 and 25.11.1993 and the stay application was dismissed on 16.12.93. Thereafter the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant on 6.12.94 hence there has been no default on the part of the petitioner in leading the evidence before learned trial Court and the defence evidence could not be recorded due to above circumstances for which no fault can be attributed to the petitioner.
(3.) IN order to judge the veracity of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I verified the facts from the certified copy of the order-sheets of the trial Court produced by learned counsel for the non-petitioner at the time of hearing. I have found a great difference in the dates and the dates mentioned by the petitioner in the memo of revision petition do not tally with the dates as recorded in the order-sheets of the trial Court. From the order-sheets it is apparent that the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the defendant for the first time on 4.1.93 when the evidence was not produced and request was made for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 16.2.93. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for recording the defendant's evidence on 16.4.93, 21.4.93, 17.5.93, 19.7.93, 19.8.93, 27.9.93, 28.10.93, 22.11.93, 25.11.93, 6.12.93, 6.1.94, 18.3.94, 18.5.94, 18.7.94, 1.8.94, 8.9.94, 9.10.94, 20.10.94, 24.10.94, 10.11.94, 9.12.94, 11.1.95, 21.1.95, 22.2.95, 6.3.95, 23.3.95, 4.4.95, 14.4.95 and lastly on 15.5.95 when the impugned order was passed by the trial Court directing closure of the defendant's evidence. Thus, it is apparent from the above that as many as 30 adjournments were repeatedly sought by the defendant-petitioner for leading his evidence and were granted and yet the petitioner deliberately did not lead any evidence before the trial Court with mala fide and ulterior motives of harassing the plaintiff-non-petitioner and surprisingly the trial Court also gave undue latitude to the petitioner by repeatedly adjourning the matter on frivolous grounds for which there are no justifiable reasons on the record. It is a matter of great surprise as to how the petitioner could repeatedly seek adjournments for leading the evidence on one pretext or the other when he deliberately had not intended to lead evidence before the trial Court and the trial Court had shut its eyes to the callous attitude of the petitioner instead of strictly dealing with the petitioner who deserved no leniency at all.;