1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1568/2010 Purushottam Keshavrao Dhokane Vs. Prafulla Vidyavilas Shukla ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. R. Joharapurkar, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] The petitioner/plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 88/2009 with the contention that he has been wrongly dispossessed of suit house consisting of six rooms by the present respondent/defendant after death of plaintiff's father. Issues were framed on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and the plaintiff also completed his final arguments. At this stage, instead of advancing the argument in defence, the respondent filed three applications vide Exhibit Nos 53, 55 and 56. Exhibit 53 is the application for grant of permission to file documents, Exhibit 55 is the application for exhibiting the documents or in the alternate to examine PW 1 further and by Exhibit 56 he sought recasting of issues. 2] The trial Court has re-casted the issues and as possession was sought also on account of bona fide need, the issue in relation to 2 comparative hardship has been framed. The issue about insufficiency of Court fees was also framed. It also allowed Exhibit 55 permitted respondent/defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness no.1 further, if the documents were not admitted. Exhibit 53 is also allowed and documents were taken on record. 3] Advocate Tathod contends that in view of the provisions of Section 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the question of comparative hardship was bound to be gone into by the trial Court and no express issue needed to be framed. He further states that if the issue is decided on the material available, the petitioner have no objection. He further points out that deficit Court fees have been paid and additional issue in that respect also does not survive. His objection is to the order passed below Exhibit 53 taking documents on record and permitted defendant to cross-examine PW 1. He states that there are no just and sufficient grounds to permit the documents to be produced and adopt this course. 4] Advocate Joharapurkar for the respondent/defendant states that plea arising from the documents sought to be tendered is already there in the written statement. As the original documents were filed in other suit, the same were required to be withdrawn and hence were produced at a later stage. He further contends that as suit is of the year 2009, the intention of delaying the proceedings cannot be attributed to the defendant. He points out that issue in relation to the Court fees is 3 also required to be framed and deficit Court fees is paid by the defendant. According to him, in such situation, interest of justice can be met with by directing the trial Court to expedite the suit and decide it at the earliest. 5] The facts clearly show that the documents were within the knowledge of the defendant when he had filed written statement. The documents, therefore, could have been filed before the petitioner/plaintiff entered the witness box and within reasonable time. It is not the case of the respondent/defendant that he made any effort to procure those documents and failed therein or then the action of withdrawal itself took long time and because of such circumstances beyond his control, documents could not be filed earlier. The applications at Exhibit Nos. 53 and 56 do not disclose any reasons whatsoever. The applications have been filed only to avoid advancing of final arguments. In this situation, learned counsel for respondent was asked to show bonafides and to compensate the petitioner/plaintiff by paying some costs. Learned counsel states that respondent/defendant is ready and willing to pay reasonable costs up to Rs. 2500/- (Rs. Two thousand five hundred only). Advocate Tathod points out that suit house consists of six rooms and two rooms were authorizedly in possession of the respondent and after death of his father, he encroached upon remaining four rooms and, therefore, he contends that suit be directed to be argued finally. 4 6] I find that insofar framing of additional issue at application Exhibit 56 is concerned, the same is not being assailed before me by the petitioner/plaintiff. Merely because provisions of law permits the respondent to file documents, he cannot seek to file documents at eleventh hour. The casual manner of drafting of application clearly shows that they have been filed only to delay further disposal of Regular Civil Suit No. 88/2009. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit is of the year 2009 and is being disposed of within a short time. It is to be noted that the efforts of the Court is always to see that the matter is disposed of at the earliest and hence age of suit has no reference. The object of the defendant is only to defeat such early disposal. In the present circumstances, I cannot find that the trial Court has used its discretion available to it in any manner as there are no reasons recorded. Exhibit 53 and 55 are, therefore, rejected and orders on it are quashed and set aside. 7] The respondent/defendant is directed to advance final arguments in Regular Civil Suit No. 88/2009 before 5th July, 2010. The Trial Court shall decide the suit as early as possible and in any case by 15th July, 2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.