Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt Neeta Dube vs Prescribed Auth./ Judge Small ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5473 ALL

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5473 ALL
Judgement Date : 13 October, 2017

Allahabad High Court
Smt Neeta Dube vs Prescribed Auth./ Judge Small ... on 13 October, 2017
Bench: Rajan Roy



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 24169 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt Neeta Dube
 
Respondent :- Prescribed Auth./ Judge Small Cause Court Lko & Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Khan,Nirmit Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard Shri M. A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

This is a writ petition filed by petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging certain orders passed by the opposite party no.1 and 2, in proceedings under Section 23 of Act No. 13 of 1972 whereby by after issuance of warrant of delivery of possession and while the police had already initiated the execution of the same, midway, on an application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant whose appeal against an order of Prescribed Authority was dismissed as having abated, the opposite party no.1 passed an interlocutory order on 26.09.2017 recording that some revision filed by the said appellant was pending wherein the date fixed was 28.09.2017, therefore, the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned should be restrained from carrying out the execution of warrant of possession, subject to the condition that if the revisional court does not pass any order then it would be open for the S.H.O., to execute the same.

Thereafter, 27.09.2017, opposite party no.2 extended the said interim protection although neither there was any stay order granted by the Revisional Court, surprisingly again referring to the alleged pendency of a revision. Orders were issued for placing the records pertaining to execution proceedings after the disposal of the revision or any further date therein. 

Thereafter, opposite party no.2 again extended the interim protection vide his order dated 28.09.2017 till 03.10.2017 on the same ground. On 03.10.2017 the court below, again extended the interim injunction on the same terms. On 04.10.2017 the interim protection was again extended till 09.10.2017 mentioning therein that it was admitted to the parties that the next date before revisional court was 18.10.2017. Sri Khan says there was no such admission on the part of the petitioner.

A confidential report has been received from the District Judge, Lucknow in pursuance of the order of this court dated 09.10.2017 which states that no such revision is pending either in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 and 3 or in the court of District Lucknow, in the matter, although a Misc. Case No. 284 of 2016 under Order 22 Rule 9 read with Section 151 as a consequence to dismissal of the appeal as abated, is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow which was earlier pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow.

The learned counsel for petitioner has placed before the Court another order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the opposite party no.2 herein, again extending the interim protection till 13.10.2017, i.e. today, mentioning therein that the applicant should have produced the stay order from the revisional court and noticing that he had not done so, yet it has extended the interim protection.

Issue notice to opposite party no.3  both ways.

Steps to be taken within two days.

The court below before whom the Misc. Case No. 284 of 2016 is said to be pending, shall expeditiously dispose of the same on the next date. If for some reasons this is not possible, then it shall be disposed of within  next one month therefrom.

The court below before which the execution proceedings are pending shall now proceed to take into consideration the aforesaid facts while considering extension of the interim order passed by it and pass appropriate orders,but after hearing the applicant before it as also the petitioner herein.

List on 11.11.2017 as fresh.

The confidential report submitted by the District Judge, Lucknow shall be sealed cover and kept in record which shall be considered on the next date, if necessary. Copy of this order be issued today.

Order Date :- 13.10.2017

psd

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter