Allahabad High Court
Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 17 March, 2021
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20093 of 2020
Petitioner :- Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushant,Adarsh Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief :-
"i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to appoint a receiver on House No.123, Ward no.20, Atarra, Naraini Road, Banda and maintain status quo between the parties till final disposal of Civil Misc. Petition under Article 227 No.5827 of 2018 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan Mandir Vs. Smt. Phoolwati & others).
ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to change the nature and status of House No.123, Ward no.20, Atarra, Naraini Road, Banda and maintain status quo between the parties till final disposal of Civil Misc. Petition under Article 227 No.5827 of 2018 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan Mandir Vs. Smt. Phoolwati & others) and not to create any further third party rights over the property."
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner claims himself to be a landlord of the disputed property and further claims that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the tenants. S.C.C. Suit No.6 of 2006 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan Mandir Awasthi Dharmshala, Station Road, Banda Vs. Smt. Phoolwati & another) was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Banda, by judgment dated 08.09.2017. Against the aforesaid judgment in SCC Suit the petitioner filed SCC Revision no.5 of 2017 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan Mandir Awasthi Dharmshala, Station Road, Banda Vs. Smt. Phoolwati & another) which was dismissed by order dated 30.05.2018, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Banda.
Against the aforesaid order, passed in revision, the petitioner preferred a petition being Matters under Article 227 No.5827 of 2018 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan Mandir Vs. Smt. Phoolwati & another) which is stated to be pending and in which no interim order is operating. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the relief as aforequoted. This writ petition was earlier dismissed by this Court by order dated 02.12.2020, as under :
"On a request being made that the matter be heard through the Video Conferencing. A Video Conferencing link was sent but none has appeared to join the Video Conferencing to press this writ petition.
The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief -
i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to appoint a receiver on House no.123 Ward No.20, Atarra, Naraini Road, Banda and maintain status quo between the parties till final disposal of Civil Misc. Petition under Article 227 No.5827 of 2018 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajman Mandir Vs. Smt. Phoolwati & others).
Since, from the relief noted above, it is clear that the petitioner has already preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is pending consideration, any further relief that the petitioner may desire, should be applied for in the same petition and not by means of a separate petition.
Subject to the above, this writ petition stands, dismissed."
Against the aforesaid order, passed in the writ petition, the petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 100 of 2021 (Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Virajmaan Mandir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 05.02.2021, as under :
"The only grievance of the petitioner is that he wants hearing through Video Conferencing. Since the link was not connected when he wanted to argue, the High Court, in all fairness, should have permitted the petitioner to argue through Video Conferencing on the next day. The rule of audi alteram partem should be followed. Therefore, the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard. Hence, the matter is remitted to the High Court. All questions are kept open.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly."
After the arguments were heard at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition and, therefore, it may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under the law for redressal of his grievance.
In view of the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under the law.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021/vkg
