ISHWARLAL MALI RATHODversusGOPAL AND ORS.

                          [2021] 9 S.C.R. 35                               35


                   ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD                                   A
                                   v.
                         GOPAL AND ORS.
      Special Leave Petition (Civil Nos. 14117 – 14118 of 2021)
                       SEPTEMBER 20, 2021                                  B
            [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
       Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Repeated
adjournments – Respondent-plaintiff filed suit inter alia for eviction
in 2013 – Petitioner-defendant’s right to cross examine the plaintiff ’s
                                                                           C
witness was eventually closed in 2020 – Confirmed by High Court
– Held: Ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019
– Twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and
even cost was imposed – Trial Court and even the High Court
continued to grant adjournments and as such contributed the delay
in disposal of the suit – Adequate liberty was given to the defendant      D
to cross examine the plaintiff ’s witness who never availed of the
same and went on delaying the proceedings – Main suit is disposed
of now – Petition dismissed.
     Administration of Justice – Justice delivery system – Delay –
Grant of adjournments – Duty of Courts – Discussed.                        E
      Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC
      678 : [2011] 10 SCR 787; Babu Singh v. State of U.P.
      (1978) 1 SCC 579 : [1978] 2 SCR 777; Noor
      Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr. (2013) 5 SCC 202 :
      [2013] 3 SCR 1146 – relied on.                                       F
                        Case Law Reference
[2011] 10 SCR 787                 relied on             Para 5.1
[1978] 2 SCR 777                  relied on             Para 5.2
[2013] 3 SCR 1146                 relied on              Para 5.3          G
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
Civil Nos.14117-14118 of 2021.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2021 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 and 108 of 2021.
                                                                           H
                                  35
36             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A         N. K. Mody, Sr. Adv., Shishir Kumar Saxena, R. N. Pareek,
     Prabhuddha Singh, Ms. Soumya Chaturvedi, Ms. Sharmila, Praveen
     Swarup, Advs. for the Appellant.
           The Order of the Court was passed by
           M. R. SHAH, J.
B
            1. Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments
     granted by the court. Present SLPs have been preferred challenging
     the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya
     Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 of 2021 and M.P. No. 108 of
     2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said misc. petition
C    preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed
     by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to
     cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.
            2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed suit for eviction, arrears of
     rents and mesne profit against one Ramchandra (now dead) and the
D    present petitioner on 14.08.2013. Petitioner herein – defendant filed
     the written statement and issues were framed. On 12.05.2014 plaintiffs
     filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC which was
     objected by the petitioner and again the plaintiffs filed an affidavit on
     07.03.2015. From 12.05.2015 till 02.12.2019 at least ten times the
E    defendants sought adjournments which were granted by the court. Lastly
     the adjournment was given with cost as a last opportunity. Despite the
     same the petitioner – defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s
     witness. On 14.10.2019 time for cross examination was given with cost
     of Rs.5,000/- and with the condition that in any case they fail to cross
     examine, their right of cross examination would be treated as closed.
F    Despite the same, the petitioner – defendant did not cross examine the
     plaintiff’s witness and therefore on 05.11.2019 their right was treated as
     closed. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing miscellaneous
     petition No.6283 of 2019 by which the right of the petitioner – defendant
     to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness was closed. Though no leniency
G    was required to be shown the High Court allowed the said petition by
     granting last opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the witness.
     Despite the same the petitioner – defendant did not even thereafter also
     cross examine the plaintiff’s witness. The suit was fixed for cross
     examination of plaintiff’s witness on 21.12.2020. On 21.12.2020 again

H
       ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD v. GOPAL AND ORS.                                  37
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – defendant filed an          A
application seeking adjournment. Considering the fact that earlier number
of adjournments were granted and the opportunity was given to the
petitioner – defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness and despite
the same the defendant fail to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, the
learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 closed the right of the
                                                                                B
cross-examining the plaintiff’s witness. The order passed by the learned
Trial Court has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned
judgment and order.
       3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-defendant.
                                                                                C
        4. As observed hereinabove, present is a classic example of
misuse of adjournments granted by the court. It is to be noted that the
respondents herein – original plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction, arrears
of rent and mesne profit as far as back in the year 2013. That thereafter
despite the repeated adjournments sought and granted by the court and
even twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and              D
even the cost was imposed, the defendant failed to cross examine the
plaintiff’s witness. Although the adequate liberty was given to the
defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, they never availed of
the same and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayers of
adjournment and unfortunately the Trial Court and even subsequently             E
the High Court continued to grant adjournment after adjournment and
as such contributed the delay in disposal of the suit which as such was
for eviction.Such approach is wholly condemnable. Law and professional
ethics do not permit such practice. Repeated adjournments on one or the
other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult to justice and
concept of speedy disposal of cases. Petitioner – defendant acted in a          F
manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to concept of speedy disposal
of civil litigation.
      5. Grant of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it
affects ultimately the justice delivery system as such came to be
considered by this court in catena of decisions and asking/grant of             G
repeated adjournments have been repeatedly condemned by this court.
     5.1 In the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011)
9 SCC 678, it is observed and held in paragraphs 14 to 17 as under:-

                                                                                H
38            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A          “14. … Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment
           merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the
           court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a
           party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward?
           15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek—and the courts grant—
           adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges
B
           are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of
           unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods
           in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes
           drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the
           appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The
C          case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high
           time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery
           system and realise that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the
           judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately,
           the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later.
           The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every
D
           date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.
           16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in CPC.
           Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body
           of justice delivery system.
E          17. … A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial
           at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the
           evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The
           parties to a suit—whether the plaintiff or the defendant—must
           cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the
           date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don’t,
F          they do so at their own peril.”
            5.2 Commenting on the delay in the justice-delivery system,
     although in respect of the criminal trial, Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of
     Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 has observed in paragraph
     4 as under:-
G
           “4. … Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from slow
           motion syndrome which is lethal to ‘fair trial’, whatever the ultimate
           decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the
           community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly
           and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent
H          being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.”
      ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD v. GOPAL AND ORS.                                  39
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       5.3 In the case of Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr. (2013)           A
5 SCC 202, using very harsh words and condemning the repeated
adjournments sought by the lawyers and granted by the courts, this
court has observed in paragraph 1, 12, 13, 27 and 28 as under:-
      “1. In a democratic body polity which is governed by a written
      Constitution and where the Rule of Law is paramount, the judiciary       B
      is regarded as sentinel on the qui vive not only to protect the
      fundamental rights of the citizens but also to see that the
      democratic values as enshrined in the Constitution are respected
      and the faith and hope of the people in the constitutional system
      are not atrophied. Sacrosanctity of the Rule of Law neither
      recognises a master and a slave nor does it conceive of a ruler          C
      and a subject but, in quintessentiality, encapsules and sings in glory
      of the values of liberty, equality and justice in accordance with
      law requiring the present generation to have the responsibility to
      sustain them with all fairness for the posterity ostracising all
      affectations. To maintain the sacredness of democracy, sacrifice         D
      in continuum by every member of the collective is a categorical
      imperative. The fundamental conception of democracy can only
      be preserved as a colossal and priceless treasure where virtue
      and values of justice rule supreme and intellectual anaemia is kept
      at bay by constant patience, consistent perseverance, and argus-
      eyed vigilance. The foundation of justice, apart from other things,      E
      rests on the speedy delineation of the lis pending in courts. It
      would not be an exaggeration to state that it is the primary morality
      of justice and ethical fulcrum of the judiciary. Its profundity lies
      in not allowing anything to cripple the same or to do any act which
      would freeze it or make it suffer from impotency. Delayed                F
      delineation of a controversy in a court of law creates a dent in the
      normative dispensation of justice and in the ultimate eventuate,
      the Bench and the Bar gradually lose their reverence, for the
      sense of divinity and nobility really flows from the institutional
      serviceability. Therefore, historically, emphasis has been laid on
      individual institutionalism and collective institutionalism of an        G
      adjudicator while administering justice. It can be stated without
      any fear of contradiction that the collective collegiality can never
      be regarded as an alien concept to speedy dispensation of justice.
      That is the hallmark of duty, and that is the real measure.
                                                                               H
40      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A    12. The proceedings in the second appeal before the High Court,
     if we allow ourselves to say so, epitomises the corrosive effect
     that adjournments can have on a litigation and how a lis can get
     entangled in the tentacles of an octopus. The philosophy of justice,
     the role of a lawyer and the court, the obligation of a litigant and
     all legislative commands, the nobility of the Bench and the Bar,
B
     the ability and efficiency of all concerned and ultimately the divinity
     of law are likely to make way for apathy and indifference when
     delay of the present nature takes place, for procrastination on the
     part of anyone destroys the values of life and creates a catastrophic
     turbulence in the sanctity of law. The virtues of adjudication cannot
C    be allowed to be paralysed by adjournments and non-
     demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter. One cannot
     be oblivious to the feeling necessities of the time. No one can
     afford to sit in an ivory tower. Neither a Judge nor a lawyer can
     ignore “the total push and pressure of the cosmos”. It is devastating
     to expect infinite patience. Change of attitude is the warrant and
D
     command of the day. We may recall with profit what Justice
     Cardozo had said: “It is true, I think, today in every department
     of the law that the social value of a rule has become a test of
     growing power and importance.” [ Benjamin N. Cardozo, The
     Nature of Judicial Process (Cosimo Inc., 2009) 73]
E    13. It has to be kept in mind that the time of leisure has to be
     given a decent burial. The sooner it takes place, the better it is. It
     is the obligation of the present generation to march with the time
     and remind oneself every moment that the rule of law is the
     centripodal concern and delay in delineation and disposal of cases
F    injects an artificial virus and becomes a vitiating element. The
     unfortunate characteristics of endemic delays have to be avoided
     at any cost. One has to bear in mind that this is the day, this is the
     hour and this is the moment, when all soldiers of law fight from
     the path. One has to remind oneself of the great saying,
G    “Awake, Arise, ‘O’ Partha”.
     27. The anguish expressed in the past and the role ascribed to the
     Judges, the lawyers and the litigants is a matter of perpetual
     concern and the same has to be reflected upon every moment. An
     attitude of indifference can neither be appreciated nor tolerated.
H    Therefore, the serviceability of the institution gains significance.
ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD v. GOPAL AND ORS.                                   41
            [M. R. SHAH, J.]

That is the command of the Majesty of Law and none should                 A
make any maladroit effort to create a concavity in the same.
Procrastination, whether at the individual or institutional level, is a
systemic disorder. Its corrosive effect and impact is like a disorderly
state of the physical frame of a man suffering from an incurable
and fast progressive malignancy. Delay either by the functionaries
                                                                          B
of the court or the members of the Bar significantly exhibits
indolence and one can aphoristically say, borrowing a line from
Southwell “creeping snails have the weakest force” [ Robert
Southwell, “Loss in Delay”, in William B. Turnbull (Ed.), The
Poetical Works of the Rev. Robert Southwell (John Russell
Smith, London 1856), p. 60.]. Slightly more than five decades back,       C
talking about the responsibility of the lawyers, Nizer Louis had put
thus:
   “I consider it a lawyer’s task to bring calm and confidence to
   the distressed client. Almost everyone who comes to a law
   office is emotionally affected by a problem. It is only a matter       D
   of degree and of the client’s inner resources to withstand the
   pressure.” [ Nizer Louis, My Life in Court (Doubleday &
   Co. Inc., New York 1961), p. 213]
       A few lines from the illustrious Justice Frankfurter is fruitful
to recapitulate:                                                          E
“I think a person who throughout his life is nothing but a practising
lawyer fulfils a very great and essential function in the life of
society. Think of the responsibilities on the one hand, and the
satisfaction on the other, to be a lawyer in the true sense.” [ Felix
Frankfurter, “Proceedings in Honor of Mr. Justice Frankfurter             F
and Distinguished Allumni, Occasional Pamphlet No. 3” (Harvard
Law School, Cambridge, 1960), pp. 4-5]
28. In a democratic set-up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the
adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay
gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith     G
and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen
constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the effect-potentiality to
bring in a state of cataclysm where justice may become a casualty.
A litigant expects a reasoned verdict from a temperate Judge but
does not intend to and, rightly so, to guillotine much of time at the
                                                                          H
42             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A          altar of reasons. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained
           and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is
           regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundational
           concept of democracy and such a right is not only the creation of
           law but also a natural right. This right can be fully ripened by the
           requisite commitment of all concerned with the system. It cannot
B
           be regarded as a facet of Utopianism because such a thought is
           likely to make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose.
           Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice-dispensation
           system cannot be allowed to remotely conceive of a casual
           approach.”
C           5.4 In the aforesaid decision, this court also considered the role of
     advocate in the justice delivery system and considered the earlier decisions
     in paragraphs 17 to 22 which read as under:-
           “17. In Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor [(2001) 1
           SCC 118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 2001
D          SC 207], after referring to a passage from Mahabir Prasad Singh
           v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd. [(1999) 1 SCC 37 : AIR 1999 SC 287],
           the Court cautioned thus : (Ramon Services case [(2001) 1 SCC
           118 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 3 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 2001 SC
           207], SCC p. 126, para 15)
E          “15. … Nonetheless we put the profession to notice that in future
           the advocate would also be answerable for the consequence
           suffered by the party if the non-appearance was solely on the
           ground of a strike call. It is unjust and inequitable to cause the
           party alone to suffer for the self-imposed dereliction of his advocate.
F          We may further add that the litigant who suffers entirely on account
           of his advocate’s non- appearance in court, has also the remedy
           to sue the advocate for damages but that remedy would remain
           unaffected by the course adopted in this case. Even so, in situations
           like this, when the court mulcts the party with costs for the failure
           of his advocate to appear, we make it clear that the same court
G          has power to permit the party to realise the costs from the advocate
           concerned. However, such direction can be passed only after
           affording an opportunity to the advocate. If he has any justifiable
           cause the court can certainly absolve him from such a liability.”

H
       ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD v. GOPAL AND ORS.                                  43
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       Be it noted, though the said passage was stated in the context of        A
strike by the lawyers, yet it has its accent on non-appearance by a counsel
in the court.
      18. In this context, we may refer to the pronouncement in
      Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of
      Maharashtra [(1984) 2 SCC 556 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 335] , wherein             B
      the Court observed that : (SCC p. 563, para 9)
          “9. … An advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants
          and it therefore follows that the client is entitled to receive
          disinterested, sincere and honest treatment especially where
          the client approaches the advocate for succour in times of need.”     C
      19. In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1984) 1
      SCC 722 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 163 : AIR 1984 SC 618] , a three-Judge
      Bench, while dealing with the role of an advocate in a criminal
      trial, has observed as follows : (SCC pp. 723-24, para 3)
          “3. We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be             D
          experienced by the petitioner. It is stated that his advocate is
          finding it difficult to attend the court from day to day. It is the
          duty of every advocate, who accepts the brief in a criminal
          case to attend the trial from day to day. We cannot over-stress
          the duty of the advocate to attend to the trial from day to day.      E
          Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of
          his professional duty, if he so fails to attend.”
      20. In Mahabir Prasad Singh [(1999) 1 SCC 37 : AIR 1999 SC
      287], the Bench, laying emphasis on the obligation of a lawyer in
      his duty towards the Court and the duty of the Court to the Bar,          F
      has ruled as under: (SCC p. 44, paras 17-18)
          “17. … ‘A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall
          detract from the dignity of the court of which he is himself a
          sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential
          respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decorum of
                                                                                G
          the courtroom.’ [Warevelle’s Legal Ethics, p. 182]
          18. Of course, it is not a unilateral affair. There is a reciprocal
          duty for the court also to be courteous to the members of the
          Bar and to make every endeavour for maintaining and protecting
          the respect which members of the Bar are entitled to have
                                                                                H
44      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A       from their clients as well as from the litigant public. Both the
        Bench and the Bar are the two inextricable wings of the judicial
        forum and therefore the aforesaid mutual respect is sine qua
        non for the efficient functioning of the solemn work carried on
        in courts of law. But that does not mean that any advocate or
        a group of them can boycott the courts or any particular court
B
        and ask the court to desist from discharging judicial functions.
        At any rate, no advocate can ask the court to avoid a case on
        the ground that he does not want to appear in that court.”
     21. While recapitulating the duties of a lawyer towards the court
     and society, being a member of the legal profession, this Court in
C    O.P. Sharma v. High Court of P&H [(2011) 6 SCC 86 : (2011) 3
     SCC (Civ) 218 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 821 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S)
     11] has observed that : (SCC p. 92, para 17)
        “17. The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of sovereign
        and democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding
D       that the nation’s administration was to be governed by the rule
        of law.”
            The Bench emphasised on the role of eminent lawyers in
     the framing of the Constitution. The emphasis was also laid on
     the concept that lawyers are the officers of the court in the
E    administration of justice.
     22. In R.K. Garg v. State of H.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 166 : 1981 SCC
     (Cri) 663], Chandrachud, C.J., speaking for the Court pertaining
     to the relationship between the Bench and the Bar, opined thus :
     (SCC p. 170, para 9)
F
        “9. … the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the
        same mechanism which administers justice to the people. Many
        members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past
        association is a source of inspiration and pride to them. It ought
        to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably
G       true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to
        begin at home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A
        discourteous Judge is like an ill- tuned instrument in the setting
        of a courtroom. But members of the Bar will do well to
        remember that such flagrant violations of professional ethics
H
       ISHWARLAL MALI RATHOD v. GOPAL AND ORS.                                  45
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          and cultured conduct will only result in the ultimate destruction     A
          of a system without which no democracy can survive.”
        5.5 Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing
acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to
access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of
such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the         B
advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts.
It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not
getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the
litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of
adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the
back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties     C
with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the
institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort
which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in
the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall
not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall         D
not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts
have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient
justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. We are
also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary
adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they
may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall           E
not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has
to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and
who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts
shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. Take
an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the         F
suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the
landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal
bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately
gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction
decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated.
The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence        G
in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following
the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and
ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very
slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall
not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. Time has now come            H
46            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A    to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so
     that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery
     system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained.
           5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
     considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments
B    were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed
     granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one
     point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also
     when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it
     was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or
     granted still the petitioner – defendant never availed of the liberty and
C    the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the petitioner – defendant
     misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that
     as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. In view of the
     circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are
     accordingly dismissed.
D

     Divya Pandey                                                SLPs dismissed.




E




F




G




H