C.R. No.1621 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1621 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.3.2010 Smt. Vidya Wati ............Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. --- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Landlord-petitioner has filed the present petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the Rent Controller to decide the rent petition within the time frame as fixed by this Court. 2. This Court has supervisory power over all the Courts and Tribunals within jurisdiction of this Court as provided by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner, eviction proceedings were commenced in the C.R. No.1621 of 2010 (O&M) -2- year April, 2007 and case was being adjourned repeatedly on one ground or another. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that eviction proceedings must reach to the logical end at the earliest, so this Court may fix any time limit for the learned Rent Controller to decide the eviction proceedings. 3. A perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court, as reproduced in the body of the petition, would reveal that at the request of either of the party, case was adjourned from time to time. Although this Court can not manage or control the roster or register of the trial Court but can certainly say, as to whether trial Court or Tribunal under this Court are functioning in accordance with law or not? Rules 1 and 2 of Order 17 are being reproduced as under:- “1. Court may grant time and adjourn hear- ing- 1[(1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party dur- ing hearing of the suit.] (2) Costs of adjournment-In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit and 2[shall make such orders as to costs occassioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deems fit]: 3[Provided that,- (a) when the hearing of the suit has com- menced, it shall be continued from day-to-day unti 1 all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. (b) no adjournment shall be granted at the re- quest of a party, except where the circum- stances are beyond the control of that party. C.R. No.1621 of 2010 (O&M) -3- (c) the fact that the pleader of a party is en- gaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment. (d) where the illness of a pleader or his inabil- ity to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjourn- ment could not have engaged another pleader in time. (e) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader, though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the wit- ness, the Court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such or- ders as it thinks fit dispensing with the exami- nation-in-chief or cross-examination of the wit- ness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not ready as afore- said.]” 4. From the perusal of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 17, it can safely be said that Court may, if sufficient cause is shown to grant time to the parties from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule 2 provides, if hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds exceptional reasons for adjourning the case. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not state that reason to adjourn the case from time to time was insufficient. However, he states that in the matter, today's date is fixed by the learned Rent Controller for recording the evidence. That being so, I do not find any reason that learned Rent Controller would act in violation of Rule 2 of Order 17 which provides when hearing commenced, it has to be concluded on day to day basis unless Court finds any exceptional circumstance to adjourn the case. C.R. No.1621 of 2010 (O&M) -4- 6. I hope and expect that learned Rent Controller would act strictly in accordance with principles of Rule 2 of Order 17 C.P.C. and would not grant any unnecessary adjournment in the matter. 7. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. (ALOK SINGH) 10th March, 2010 JUDGE ashish