Allahabad High Court
Devendra Kumar Srivastava vs Srimati Raj Kumari & 2 Ors. on 8 March, 2021
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 34
Delay Condonation Application No. 39108 of 2020
In
Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 39107 of 2020
In
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 43 of 2005
Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- Srimati Raj Kumari & 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra,Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudha,Ratnesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Srivastava,H.A.B. Sinha,Ravi Nath Tilhari
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
This is a delay condonation application in aid of restoration application.
Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the delay condonation application.
Cause shown in the delay condonation application in filing the restoration application is sufficient.
Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned. The restoration application shall be heard on merits.
Order Date :- 8.3.2021
Nadeem Ahmad
Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 39107 of 2020
In
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 43 of 2005
Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- Srimati Raj Kumari & 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra,Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudha,Ratnesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Srivastava,H.A.B. Sinha,Ravi Nath Tilhari
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an application to recall the order dated 22.07.2019 whereby this writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution. It is supported with an affidavit.
It is submitted that earlier counsel for the petitioner Sri Mahesh Chandra expired in the year 2018.
The reasons given in the restoration application for non appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner on 22.07.2019 are sufficient. The restoration application is allowed.
The order dated 22.07.2019 dismissing the writ petition for non prosecution is recalled.
The writ petition is restored to its original number and status.
Order Date :- 8.3.2021
Nadeem Ahmad
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 43 of 2005
Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- Srimati Raj Kumari & 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra,Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudha,Ratnesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Srivastava,H.A.B. Sinha,Ravi Nath Tilhari
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner is a tenant in the disputed premises. The land-lord of the premises instituted proceedings for eviction of the petitioner in the year 2000 which came to be registered as P.A. Case No. 10 of 2000 (Rajkumari Vs. Devendra Kumar).
The petitioner has assailed three orders in this writ petition. The order dated 04.02.2005 rendered by the learned trial court declining the amendment application, the order dated 24.03.2005 also rendered by the learned trial court rejecting the application for issuance of commission and finally the order dated 22.03.2005 passed by the learned District Judge refusing to transfer the case to another court.
The impugned order dated 04.02.2005 rejecting the application for amendment tendered by the petitioner records that the petitioner had filed a written statement in October 2003 subsequent to plaintiff tendering his evidence. Adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner/ defendant in the suit to file pleadings and introduce evidence. Despite the opportunities no evidence was adduced by the petitioner/ defendant. The amendment application was filed without disclosing any reason for delay in the said application.
The learned trial court has also found in no uncertain terms that the petitioner/ defendant in the suit has instituted the amendment application only to delay the suit proceedings.
The consideration of the application for the amendment on its merits was also made by the trial court. In substance the trial court found that the amendment application was wholly misconceived. The material grounds for contesting the suit were taken in the written statement and were only sought to be reiterated in the amendment application. The proceedings in the court below are of a summary nature.
Having perused the amendment application and seeing the conduct the of the petitioner, I conclude that the amendment application was in fact an abuse of the process of the Court, inasmuch as the intendment to delay the proceedings on part of the respondent/ defendant in the suit is writ large in the face of the record. Moving multiple applications in a suit is an ingenuous device adopted by tenants to delay eviction proceedings in the State of U.P. The only purpose for moving such application is to embroil the suit in multiplicity of applications and prevent the final disposal on merits. Such parties cannot expect any relief from a court of equity. The reasons cited by the trial court for refusing the amendment application on merits are also correct in law.
The order dated 24.03.2005 declining the issuance of commission the learned trial court has recorded that the evidence from both the parties has been tendered, and the reception of evidence stands closed. The respondent/ defendant by means of application for commission is seeking to introduce certain facts which do not have any bearing on the merits of the case. The learned trial court has reiterated that the only intent of the respondent/ defendant is to create impediments in the final disposal of the matter. On this footing the application for issuance of the commission has been rejected.
The third relief has become infructuous, inasmuch as no cause for the transfer application survives as on date. The presiding officer against whom the transfer application was moved has long been transferred.
The Court is informed that the suit proceedings were resumed after the interim order was vacated. However, considering the fact that suit was pending endlessly for a period of almost two decades a direction needs to be issued to subserve the ends of justice. It is noteworthy that this Court granted the interim order only on the footing that the transfer application was rejected by the learned District Judge without disclosing any reasons.
The proceedings in the court below are of a summary nature. The legislative intent behind creating the concept of summary proceeding was to ensure an expeditious disposal of such proceedings. The legislature insulated such summary proceedings from endless techanicalities which cause inordinate delay. The court below was alert to the legislative intent and the same was reflected in the impugned orders. The judgment of the learned trial court is made on the foot of sound reasoning after due application of mind to relevant facts, and is wholly in conformity with law. This Court exercising its writ jurisdiction is always reluctant to interfere in findings of fact, or to reappreciate evidence
No perversity in the findings or arbitrariness in the procedure adopted has been established.
There is no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 04.02.2005, 24.03.2005 and 22.03.2005 passed by the learned trial court.
The impugned orders dated 04.02.2005, 24.03.2005 and 22.03.2005 are not liable to be interfered with and the prayer for quashment of the impugned orders is declined.
However, the matter cannot be allowed to rest in the facts of this case.
The matter is remitted to the learned trial court/ learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the learned trial court/ learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao to execute the following directions:
(1) The trial court/ learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao shall proceed and decide the matter on merits within a period of two months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(2) The trial court/ learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao if necessary shall proceed on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time line of two months is strictly adhered to.
(3) The petitioner Sri Devendra Kumar Srivastava is present in person in the Court. He undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the court below and not to seek any adjournment.
In case the judgment of the trial court/ learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao is taken in appeal/ revision, the appellate court/ revising court shall decide the appeal/ revision on priority and strictly within a period of two months from the date of institution of such appeal/ revision.
Both the parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the appellate/ revising court as well to ensure that the time stipulated for the decision is strictly adhered to.
The writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 8.3.2021
Nadeem Ahmad
