Sanjeev Kumar v. Vinod Kumar

1. Since a similar issue has been raised in both the abovesaid petitions, these have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar has filed two different suits i.e. Civil Suit No.3111/2016 and Civil Suit No.3110/2016.

3. Both these suits were filed in the year 2014.

4. The abovesaid suits are based on rent agreements between the parties and the plaintiff (petitioner herein) is seeking possession of the tenanted shop(s) and recovery of arrears of rent.

5. By virtue of the present two petitions, there is a request that the learned Trial Court may be requested to decide the abovesaid suits within a period of CM(M) 690/2025 & 2 nine months from today.

6. It is admitted fact that Constitutional Courts do not, generally, give any direction to any Court for disposing of the matter in a time-bound manner, unless there is any acute exigency or extreme hardship.

7. According to plaintiff (petitioner herein), in the year 2019, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XV-A CPC seeking direction to his tenant to pay/deposit the admitted rent and such application is pending adjudication for last more than six years and there is no decision, as yet.

8. It is also highlighted that the opposite side i.e. defendant has also filed an application under Section 15 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking transfer of the abovesaid suits to a Commercial Court. The defendants are also intending to amend their written statements. It is submitted that all such applications are pending for last several years and the arguments are being heard from time to time but there is no disposal of such applications.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, in all fairness, also submits that the defendant has also filed two separate suits whereby he seeks declaration to the effect that the rent agreements in question are null and void. He informs that all such four suits are pending adjudication before the same Court but fact remains that there is no headway in any of those.

10. Though it may not be appropriate for this Court to give any direction to dispose of the suits in a time-bound manner but keeping in mind the facts placed before this Court, both the present petitions are disposed of with direction to the learned Trial Court to make best endeavour to dispose of all pending applications in the abovesaid two suits and also applications, if any, in the connected two suits as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of three months, to be reckoned from the date when it takes up such CM(M) 690/2025 & 3 suits for further consideration.

11. The petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE APRIL 17, 2025 st/js