1/3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6702/09 (Jeevan Ram vs. Gokul Chand) DATE OF ORDER : 15/7/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.V.K.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.Moti Singh, for the respondent. This petition has been filed by one Jeevan Ram-defendant tenant against the order dated 9/7/2009 passed by learned trial court refusing the opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff's evidence by defendant's counsel. The learned trial court has passed a very detailed order giving all the reasons for rejecting the said prayer of the defendant on 9/7/2009. As a matter of fact, same defendant had approached this Court by way of writ petition no.3920/2009 against the rejection of his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement which was sought at the fag end of the trial. Said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 29/4/2009 with cost of Rs.1000/- giving reference to the earlier dismissal of writ petition no. 5391/2008 against the order dated 23/7/2008 passed by the learned trial court, whereby, learned trial court had rejected the application of the defendant seeking to postpone the evidence of the plaintiff merely on the ground that defendant had filed an application in the Court and the same was missing from the court file. Said previous writ petition was also dismissed by the Court with strictures against the defendant in the following terms: 2/3 “Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the defendant is a reticent kind of litigant who does not want the trial to proceed and by hook and crook wants to delay and defeat the fair trial in question. The kind of flying allegations made by the defendant before the trial court apparently shows that he is not interested in facing the trial but can go to the extent of levelling allegations against the Advocate concerned and even Presiding Officer. Be that as it may, the trial court appears to have rightly held that irrespective of enquiry into the missing papers from the said file, the trial should proceed and this Court finds no illegality in the same. 7. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. The same is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.” Again writ petition no. 3920/09 was dismissed by this Court with cost of Rs.1000/- and the learned trial court was directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and complete the trial within a period of two months namely on or before 29th July, 2009. Again, it appears that the conclusion of trial is spilled over upto 9th July, 2009 beyond the period fixed by this Court and again an excuse was raised before the trial court that counsel could not appear due to lawyers' strike. It appears that the present defendant litigant is a cantankerous litigant, who treats the Court with little respect and dignity. Even counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present writ petition, other than the one who earlier appeared before this Court, did not bring it to the notice of the Court the judgment passed on 3/3 29/4/2009. It is only the learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared on caveat brought to the notice of the Court, the said earlier dismissal with strictures and cost against the present defendant- petitioner. Such an attitude of the present defendant-petitioner can hardly be over deprecated than this. This Court, therefore, is left with no alternative but to dismiss the present writ petition again with exemplary cost of Rs.2000/-. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- which may be deposited in Bar Association Library Fund, Bhadra, Hanumangarh and receipt be produced before the learned trial court before the next date fixed before the trial court. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.s/2 baweja/-