AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prakash Krishna,J.
Challenging the order dated 19th January, 2011 passed by the court below whereby it has rejected the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendanttenant, Civil Revision Defective No. 8 of 2011 and the order dated 16th November, 2011 whereby the court below has held that the suit will be heard and decided as small cause courts suit, Civil Revision Defective No. 166 of 2011, have been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
It appears that S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 2002 has been filed for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the defendantapplicant. The said suit is still pending before the trial court. The defendanttenant did not file the written statement within the prescribed period and presented it belatedly. The Court refused to take the written statement on record. Thereafter, the defendanttenant preferred Civil Revision Defective No. 114 of 2010. This Court permitted taking of the written statement on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/. The defendanttenant has paid the cost and the written statement has been taken on record. Thereafter, applications one after the another were preferred by the defendanttenant which were rejected in due course of time. Ultimately, an application to amend the written statement was filed which has been dismissed by the trial court by the order 16.11.2011, under revision on the ground that since 27th November, 2010, dates are being fixed for evidence of the defendant but he is not filing the evidence.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after filing of the written statement in the year 2005, a compromise was entered into between the parties that the plaintiff will take back the suit and under the said compromise a sum of Rs.3,39,250/ was paid, but the suit has not been taken back.
Refuting the above allegations, learned counsel for the plaintiffopposite party submits that the said amount was paid towards arrears of rent by the defendanttenant. He further submits that conduct of the defendanttenant disentitled him to get any discretionary relief under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Taking into consideration that the defendanttenant is lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other by filing successive applications including two transfer applications against the Presiding Officer, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The defendanttenant should cooperate with the proceedings of the suit. If ultimately the decree is passed against him, he may challenge the impugned order along with revision against the final order.
Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality in the order dated 16th November, 2011 impugned in Civil Revision Defective No. 166 of 2011.
Before parting with the case, it may be noted that there is earlier directions by this Court to decide the suit within a period of four month and that time has expired. Now the trial court shall proceed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months by fixing short dates from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The case shall not be adjourned for a period of more than a week at a time and the trial court shall fix short dates so that the hearing may be concluded within the above specified period. The adjournment shall be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that too on payment of costs not less than Rs.500/ per adjournment.
Both the revisions are, hereby dismissed.