Smt. Premwati vs Natthoo
2015 Latest Caselaw 747 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28245 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Premwati
 
Respondent :- Natthoo
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Heard Sri J.K.Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 18.11.2014 and 24.2.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ist, Hapur in P.A. Execution Case No.2 of 2013 (Natthoo Vs. Pradeep).

The respondents had filed an application under Section 21 of the Act No. XIII of  1972 for release of the property in dispute  which was decreed on 17.3.1998. During the pendency of the proceedings, the tenant/ defendant Mahaveer died on 26.4.1997 leaving behind his wife (petitioner) and two sons. The sons were impleaded to the proceedings. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Prescribed Authority, the sons of the petitioner assailed the judgment in appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed  on 25 November 2000,  a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 53556 of 2000 was filed which was also dismissed by this Court on 26.2.2011. Consequently an execution case being Execution Case No. 2 of 2013 was  filed for execution of the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority. In execution case, the petitioner filed an application for staying the proceedings of  the aforesaid execution case, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.2.2015.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during pendency of the revision, the court below should refrain from proceeding with  the execution case. Petitioner should have been made a party to the case after the death of her husband.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the sons of the petitioner who were admittedly the tenant  were contesting the case. Their appeal and writ petition were dismissed. The judgment has attained finality.

In these circumstances, the learned court below has not committed any illegality infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order.

This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 28.5.2015

Ashish Pd.