Veena Gupta & ANR v. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal & ORS

$~A-32 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 834/2016 VEENA GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Amit Punj, Advocate.

versus RAMESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Respondents Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 29.08.2016 CM No. 31206/2016 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 834/2016 1.

By the present petition, the petitioners seek directions to the court of ARC to expeditiously dispose of the eviction petitions No. 242/2014 and 243/2014 titled as "Smt. Veena Gupta & Anr. vs. Sh.R.K. Aggarwal & Ors." within the time frame granted by this court vide order dated 25.04.2013.

2.

The advance copy of this petition has been sent to the respondents by speed post on 24.08.2016 but none is present for the respondents. 3.

This court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioners on 25.04.2013 by which petition the petitioners had challenged the order of the CM(M) 834/2016

ARC granting leave to defend to the respondents. While disposing of the petition, this court had noted that the trial court would endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year from that date.

4.

It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite lapse of more than 31/2 years from the date of the said order, the evidence of PW-1 is yet to be completed.

5.

A perusal of the order sheets filed by the petitioners shows that several requests are being made by the respondents for adjournment. On two occasions, namely, on 19.02.2015 and 28.07.2016 to obstruct recording of PE, various applications have been moved.

6.

In the given circumstances, even the cross-examination of PW-1 has not been completed despite lapse of 3-1/2 years. 7.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ARC is requested to expeditiously dispose of the present eviction petition. On the dates fixed for evidence, no adjournment should be given to any of the parties unless it is an emergent situation. The ARC to keep into account the fact that more than 21/2 years have lapsed from the time schedule fixed by this court earlier vide its order dated 25.04.2013 8.

With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of. JAYANT NATH, J AUGUST 29, 2016 rb CM(M) 834/2016