SBCWP No.1530/2007 Devi Dayal Vs. Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.1530/2007 Devi Dayal Vs. Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 14.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.JK Bhaiya, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The suit for eviction of the tenant was filed in the year 1988 in the trial court. The written statement was filed in the year 1991. The rejoinder was filed to said written statement and, thereafter, the issues were framed by the trial court on 23.8.1994 and additional issue was framed on 27th July, 1999, then the present application has been submitted by the defendant on 16.1.1999 praying that part of the plaint may be rejected as the suit has been filed by the plaintiff before the expiry of 5 years of creation of the tenancy as per the plaint allegation. The trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 27th July, 1999, against which appeal was preferred which was decided by the court of Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh vide order SBCWP No.1530/2007 Devi Dayal Vs. Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh & Ors. 2 dated 3.2.2007. The petitioner's application which was filed after such an inordinate delay not only from the time of filing of his written statement, but even from the time of framing of issues in the facts of the case, should not have been entertained by the trial court, but has been entertained and has been rejected by reasoned order dated 27th July, 1999 and, thereafter, the appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the first appellate court vide order dated 2.2.2007 and the progress of the case has been remained stayed because of summoning of the record even by this Court in the writ petition and therefore, the suit of the year 1988 is pending. Be it as it may be, the contention of the petitioner is that the suit has been filed within 5 years of the creation of the tenancy, therefore, the plaint may be rejected even then the suit has been filed not only on sole ground of eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff, but has been filed with other grounds also. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the application has been filed and by that time even the period SBCWP No.1530/2007 Devi Dayal Vs. Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh & Ors. 3 of 5 years from the tenancy already expired long ago. In view of the above reason, I do not find any reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such a matter. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-