IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1536 of 2007 BHAKT RADHA MOHAN Versus HAZIN BIBI KHAIRUN NISSA & ANR With C.R. No.982 of 2008 BHAKT RADHA MOHAN Versus HAZIN BIBI KHEIRUN NISSA & ANR ----------- 2 11.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the defendant tenant petitioner. The present cases are a classic example of abuse of process of the Court at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner in the first civil revision application C.R. No. 1536/2007 has assailed the impugned order of the Court below dated 5.7.2007 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by him in an eviction suit under B.B.C. Act seeking recall of the witnesses of plaintiff landlord opposite party for their cross examination, has been rejected. The Court below has in fact analyzed the whole aspect of the matter in great detail in the impugned order and after its perusal, this Court can only say that no civil litigation can come to an end till a litigating party has ultimately decided to call it a day. This is apparent from the fact that despite repeated indulgence given by the Court below to the Counsel for the defendant-petitioner, he did not choose to cross- examine p.ws. 3, 4 & 5 till the date, the evidence of the 2 plaintiff was closed. The Court below in this regard has referred to the order dated 9.3.2005, 10.3.2005, 11.3.2005, 16.3.2005 and 17.3.2005 to support its view that the defendant-petitioner before this Court was purposely delaying the disposal of the suit. He has also referred to the fact that against an order dated 9.3.2005 of the court below, the petitioner had moved this Court in civil revision application no. 651/2005 and there also this Court in its order had recorded that the petitioner was purposely delaying the disposal of the suit. From a perusal of a copy of the order dated 8.4.2005 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 651/2005 such delaying tactics of the petitioner is itself established in as much on the earlier occasion this court had been constrained to observe and record that :- “…………After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite clear that the Eviction Suit had been filed as far back as on 12.2.2001 whereafter the defendant-petitioner had appeared on 2.3.2001 and filed his written statement on 31.5.2001 and since then the Eviction Suit is pending for disposal and it was only after about three years that the issues were settled on 23.3.2004. Even thereafter the matter was delayed and only when this Court, vide order dated 31.1.2005 passed in Civil Revision No. 1660 of 2004, directed the learned court 3 below to expedite the disposal of the Eviction Suit that the hearing of the suit started. But thereafter the defendant-petitioner raised an objection against admission of documents filled in the court as far back as on 24.7.2004. It is also clear that the evidence of the plaintiffs have already been closed It is apparent from the materials on record that the defendant-petitioner is using all means to delay the disposal of the suit due to which the learned court below is facing difficulty to expedite the disposal of the suit as per earlier order of this Court. This would be apparent from the fact that the defendant has submitted a list of ninetyfive witnesses and the type of witnesses he wants to depose on his behalf would be apparent from the fact that the first person on the list is the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs………..” This Court would find that even thereafter a lapse of two years the petitioner and/or his counsel had continued with the same delaying approach and the prayer by the petitioner to recall the witness of the plaintiff after closure of evidence of the petitioner was a deliberate attempt to forestall the proceedings of an eviction suit under B.B.C. Act. It is really unfortunate to note that even the counsel for the petitioner has become party to such delaying tactics and his proximity with the petitioner has crossed all norms of professional etiquette in as much as he has cited himself to be first of 95 witnesses on behalf of the defendant petitioner. This Court 4 would refrain from making any comment on the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner but would definitely remind him that he belongs to a noble profession which requires him to withdraw from a case in which he finds his professional and personal interest overlapping each other. Be that it may the impugned order refusing to recall the witnesses of the plaintiff for the reasons mentioned therein does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and consequently this court would find no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 5.7.2007. It has to be noted that after being unsuccessful in two earlier civil revision applications before this Court namely Civil Revision Application No. 1660/2004 disposed of on 31.1.2005 directing the Court below to expedite the hearing of the suit and Civil Revision Application No. 651/2005, yet again directing the Court below by an order dated 8.4.2005 to expedite the disposal of the suit without allowing unnecessary delaying the matter, the present civil revision application against the order dated 5.7.2007 was filed on 30.7.2007 and no attempt was made for early hearing of this case C.R. no. 1536/2007 and when the Court below had rejected the prayer of the defendant petitioner by an order dated 28.4.2008 refusing any further adjournment on the ground of pendency of C.R. 1536 of 2007, after awaiting the order of this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1536/2007 for almost one year, the petitioner has filed the second Civil Revision application 5 assailing the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.4.2008 which is the subject matter of Civil Revision Application No. 982/2008. The reasons given therein for not adjourning the hearing of the Eviction Suit are wholly justified and in keeping with the spirit of summary trial under B.B.C. Act. Thus court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 28.04.2008 and thus even this Civil Revision application must be held to be wholly frivolous, filed with the same aim and objective to keep the eviction suit pending for ever. This court would also find that Eviction Suit, being of the year 2001 has not yet been disposed of despite repeated direction of this Court in the orders dated 31.01.2005 and 08.04.2005 in Civil Revision Application No. 1660/2004 and Civil Revision Application No. 651/2005. In such circumstances, this Court while dismissing the aforementioned both the civil revision applications would direct the Court below to take up the hearing on day-to-day basis and to ensure that the suit itself is disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Having regard to the conduct of the defendant- petitioner, this Court had proposed to impose an exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be realized from the defendant for his dubious conduct in delaying the disposal of the eviction suit 6 for a period of more than seven years but keeping in view the request of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor tenant and would be compelled to abandon the suit itself instead of praying the cost of Rs. 25,000/-, this court by way of its disapproval of the conduct of the petitioner would award a cost of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff opposite party within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and a receipt showing payment of cost to be filed by the petitioner in the court below. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the Civil Revision applications are dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)