- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the original defendant in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005. The petitioner (original defendant) is challenging the order passed by the trial court dated January 28, 2009 in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the present petition), whereby the application, preferred by the present petitioner (original defendant) that the plaint should be dismissed or returned, as there is no proper verification at the end of the plaint, as required under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application, preferred by the original defendant, has been dismissed and, therefore, being aggrieved of that order, the original defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this petition mainly for the following reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner is a defendant in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005. The said suit has been instituted by the respondents (original plaintiffs) for eviction of the property, which is in possession of the present petitioner; (ii) It also appears that earlier a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 994 of 2008 was preferred and a direction was given by this Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months; (iii) It also appears that being a defendant, the petitioner is much worrying about further proceedings of the suit and, therefore, an application was preferred under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was rejected against which the present petitioner (original defendant) preferred W.P.(C) No. 2891 of 2008. In that writ petition, this Court was pleased to pass an order that the trial court may proceed with the hearing of the suit but shall not pronounce the judgment and ultimately this Court vide order dated November 12, 2008 dismissed the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 2891 of 2008, which was preferred by this very petitioner; .(iv) It appears that the petitioner is interested only in delaying the proceedings of the Eviction Suit. This is but obvious from his behaviour; .(v) It also appears that thereafter the matter was kept for further hearing. Learned counsel for the original plaintiffs concluded his arguments on January 21, 2009 and learned counsel for the defendant submitted that he will argue his case on January 27, 2009. The matter was fixed on January 27, 2009 for argument by the defendant; .(vi) Again it appears that on January 27, 2009 learned counsel for the original defendant prayed for time and was not ready to argue out the case. Thereafter, the matter must have been adjourned on January 28, 2009 and on that day also an application was preferred by the original defendant that the plaint should be dismissed or returned for want of proper verification. Looking to the order, passed by the trial court, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it appears that no error has been committed by the trial court in dismissing the application, preferred by the original defendant. This application is preferred only as a delay tactic and rightly the same has been appreciated and dismissed by the trial court. Eviction Suit is already directed to be proceeded as per the order, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2891 of 2008. All the legal contentions can be raised at the time of final hearing of the suit. Instead of finally arguing the civil suit, one by one applications are being preferred by the present petitioner (original defendant).
(3.) IN view of these facts, no error has been committed by the trial court much less an error on the face of the record and, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with, the impugned order, passed by the trial court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I hereby dismiss the writ petition and direct the trial court to finally decide the Eviction Suit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, passed by this Court. No unnecessary adjournment will be given by the trial court. All the legal contentions are left open, which will be raised by the present petitioner at the time of final hearing, including the maintainability etc.;