IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHNAD AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 501 of 2004 (M/S) Zameer Ahamd. ………… Petitioner Versus Addl. District Judge & others. ………… Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 to 7. Hon’ble V.K Gupta, C.J. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Dehradun (Fast Track Court – III), I am quite convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The issue with respect to the appointment of the Commission, the report of the Commission and subsequent events leading to the passing of the impugned order present a very sordid picture about how the machinery of the court and the process of law can be misused and abused to protract a litigation at the instance of a tenant facing an eviction action. The learned court below has taken a correct view. No interference is called for. In the penultimate para of the impugned order, the learned court below has actually granted indulgence to the petitioner / appellant by observing that if, during the course of arguments in the appeal, any necessity arises, the court may consider afresh the issue with respect to the appointment of a fresh Commission and passing suitable orders with respect thereto at that stage. Even while I am not disputing or disagreeing with this observation of the learned court below, I do wish to point out that in the course of the impugned order itself, the court has observed that it is no part of the court’s duty to collect material for the appellant because it is up to the parties to present their evidence in the court. If ever, therefore, during the course of arguments, either the appellant /petitioner makes a request or the court suo motu thinks about sending a Commission, it shall keep in mind the aforesaid cardinal principle of law that the courts do not collect evidence for the parties and it is for the parties to adduce their evidence to prove their case. This apart, where was the necessity at all, ever to send a Commission with respect to a shop, which admittedly is being occupied by the petitioner/ appellant, who is the tenant of the shop. The appeal has been pending for very, very unduly long time. Apparently, the tenant has done everything possible to delay the disposal of the appeal. I, therefore, direct that the learned court below shall dispose of the appeal, along with all the connected appeals, before 30th September, 2008. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 6th August, 2008. No adjournment shall be granted in any appeal to any party except for absolutely compelling and totally unavoidable reasons, to be recorded in writing to the full and total satisfaction of the learned court below. The writ petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 16.07.2008 G 2