ORDER Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. This is tenant's petition. The petitioner filed Original Suit No. 31 of 1995 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh for temporary/ permanent injunction restraining the defendant-landlord from evicting him from the disputed accommodation. Aggrieved against rejection of application for temporary/permanent injunction by both the courts below, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17195 of 2005 which was disposed of by High Court vide judgment and order dated 14.3.2005 with the direction to the courts below to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
3. Tenant-petitioner relied upon an agreement of tenancy dated 19.11.1994 between him and the landlord before the trial court and the rent receipts duly signed by the defendant-landlord. Defendant-landlord refused to acknowledge his signatures on the rent receipts produced by the tenant with Application No. 153-Ga. The tenant moved another Application No. 155A for amendment of plaint for direction to the landlord to produce original contract executed between the parties. He also pleaded before the trial court that signatures of landlord be verified from a handwriting expert. Trial court vide order dated 9.3.2005 rejected both the aforesaid applications of the tenant.
4. Aggrieved, the tenant-petitioner preferred Revision No. 173 of 2005 in the Court of District Judge, Aligarh, which was allowed and it was held that both the Application Nos. 153Ga and 155A are liable to be allowed as their summary rejection would result in irreparable loss and injury to the tenant. The trial court, on remand, allowed Application No. 153Ga and granted time till 18.11.2005 to prove signatures of the landlord on rent receipt by hand writing expert. In the meantime the case was transferred to Civil Judge, Aligarh. Time for proving signature of the landlord on the rent receipt was extended from time to time and when tenant failed to prove the same, no further opportunity was afforded to him vide order dated 23.1.2006 passed by the trial court. Tenant challenged the order dated 23.1.2006 in Revision No. 21 of 2006.
5. Revisional court relying upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. , held that that the revision was not maintainable and hence this petition.
6. From perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner-tenant was afforded sufficient opportunity to submit hand writing expert's report but he failed to do so. Moreover, the courts below have only rejected applications of the tenant and the case has not been finally decided. The tenant-petitioner has ample opportunity to prove his case by documentary and oral evidence before the courts below. The tenant-petitioner is only protracting the proceedings as is apparent from the records. The High Court should be slow in interference in matters in exercise of powers under Article 226 as discretion is to be exercised judiciously. It is already overburdened and overflowing with cases and, therefore, extraordinary power is to be exercised only in case the matter is of public importance or constitutional questions etc., are involved and not in cases where one or the other party comes before it with concealed motive to delay the adjudication/final decision in case before the courts below. This petition is only a chain in lingering in delaying decision in the matter. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction against interlocutory orders is not warranted.
7. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.