' Respondent No,2 filed an ejectment petition under section 13 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the petitioner on 7-12-1998. The petitioner filed written statement and the learned Rent Controller after framing issues fixed the case for evidence on 24-11-1999, when respondent No,2 alongwith his witnesses were present. An application was moved by the petitioner that his counsel is busy in election and had gone to Depalpur and could not appear in the Court. It was further mentioned that the petitioner was also keeping fast and he is not feeling well and adjournment was sought on this ground. This application was opposed by the other side and the Court was informed that the coupsel for petitioner was sitting in his Chamber. The learned Rent Controller called the counsel through his Qasid, who appeared before the Court, when he was told that his client had stated that counsel has gone to Depalpur. He replied that he was sitting due to present case. Upon which the learned Rent Controller proceeded to record the evidence, but the counsel for petitioner stated that he was going and would not cross-examine the witnesses and left the Court. The case was, however, adjourned subject to payment of costs of Rs, 1,000. The present petition has been directed against the above said order.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller was not justified to award adjournment on costs. In support of his arguments reliance has been placed on case Ismaeel v. Rent Controller, Shandadpur (1983 CLC 2994).
3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The presence of learned counsel in his Chamber is sufficient to show that the application filed by the petitioner for obtaining adjournment was false and vexatious to his knowledge. The subsequent conduct demonstrated by the learned counsel is also indicative of respect which he showed to the learned Rent Controller. It is admitted fact that the witnesses of respondent No,2 were present and it had definitely caused inconvenience to the witnesses as well as to the party. Though Civil Procedure Code is not in stricto senso applicable to the ejectment proceeding but the procedure laid down under Orders XVI and XVII, C.P.C. Is very much applicable.
Even, the learned Rent Controller is not precluded from taking any action to preserve the decorum of the Court. Being persona designata he has got inherent jurisdiction to pass any such order, which he deems fit to regulate the proceedings, in the interest of justice. It is a general complaint amongst the public that the Court grant unnecessary adjournments. Had the attitude of the counsel or parties been cooperative then the position would have been different. The very fact that a false application was submitted and when the counsel appeared his attitude was most indifferent. Even then, the learned Rent Controller in order to avoid any untoward happening adjourned the case subject to payment of costs. Order of the Rent Controller is just and fair and suffers from no illegality. The authority referred by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it was not a case simply for grant of adjournment.
The parties are supposed to be fair with the Court or Tribunal before whom they are appearing. The application filed by the petitioner as already pointed out was false and vexatious, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Ronaq Ali and others v. Nawab Saeed Ahmad and others PLD 1973 SC 236 that: "Order in the nature of a writ of certiorari or mandamus is a discretionary order. Its object is to foster justice and right a wrong. Therefore, before a person can be permitted to invoke this discretionary power of a Court. It must be shown that the order sought to be set aside had occasioned some injustice to the parties. If it does not work any injustice to any party, rather it cures a manifest illegality then the extraordinary jurisdiction ought not be allowed to be invoked".
4. In the light of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.