Sunaina Devi v. Shivnath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1593 of 2019 ====================================================== Sunaina Devi Wife of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Behind Bajaj Auto, P.S.- -Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

Shivnath Son of Late Kailash Paswan, resident of Shiv Nath Motor Garage, Near Brinda Ban Nursing Home, Raj Kumar Hotel Gali, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

2.

Birchandra, Son of Late Kailash Paswan, resident of Shiv Nath Motor Garage, Near Brinda Ban Nursing Home, Raj Kumar Hotel Gali, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.

3.

Dina Paswan @ Dina Nath Paswan, Son of not known, resident of Shiv Nath Motor Garage, Near Brinda Ban Nursing Home, Raj Kumar Hotel Gali, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Mr. Archit Rajpal For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT 02-12-2019 The present petition has been filed "for a direction to Court of learned Munsif III, Patna, to dispose of the Eviction Suit No. 51/2015 pending in the Court of learned Munsif III, Patna, filed by the petitioner against the respondents in the year 2015 under Section 11 of the Bihar Building (Lease and Eviction Control) Act, 1982."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/petitioner, a lady of advanced age, had filed Eviction Suit No. 51 of 2015 as the defendants/respondents have been defaulting in payment of rent since the same was enhanced from

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1593 of 2019 dt.02-12-2019 2/2 Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3000/- per month after April, 2014. It is submitted that progress in the suit has been unnecessarily delayed as the defendants/respondents have been seeking adjournment on various counts so much so that on 11.04.2019 adjournment was sought on the ground that counsel of the defendants/respondents was pre-occupied with other cases and would not able to give time in the present case.

3. Having regard to the grievance of the plaintiff/petitioner, no notice is considered necessary to the defendants/respondents and the ends of justice will be met by disposing of the petition with the observation that the learned court below would take up and dispose of the suit expeditiously and without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

4. The petition stands disposed of with the observation, as above.

(Vikash Jain, J) HR/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 12.2019 Transmission Date