Ram Babu vs Jaipal Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 18304 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18722 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Babu
 
Respondent :- Jaipal Singh
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Singh Vashisht
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed on 23.09.2022 in Misc. Case No.2 of 2022 whereby the recall application of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 has been rejected. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.11.2021 passed in SCC Revision No.32 of 2017 whereby his revision has come to be dismissed against a judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

Upon perusal of the orders, it is reflected that on 05.08.2021, the petitioner's counsel had appeared before the Court, sitting in revision. However, thereafter, he absented himself from the proceedings and finally on 16.09.2021, the parties were directed to file their written arguments. Even thereafter, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel appeared, so his opportunity to file written arguments, after several dates, came to be closed on 11.11.2021.

In such circumstance, therefore, I do not see any manifest error in the findings returned by the Court below on the question of non appearance of the petitioner in his own revision petition. The Court has recorded a categorical finding of fact that repeatedly opportunities were afforded to the petitioner-tenant to participate in the hearing of the revision petition and also to file written arguments but neither the written argument was filed nor the petitioner appeared through his counsel to get the case decided on its own merits.

In so far as the judgment of the Court, sitting in revision, affirming the order of the trial court in a suit for recovery of arrears of land and ejectment is concerned, I find that it has touched the point upon which the findings has been returned by the trial Judge. It has recorded a categorical finding with regard to the several points determined in the judgment dated 07.05.2019 and held the plaintiff-respondent to be entitled to be handed over the possession of the property within a specified time. The Court sitting in revision has not found any flaw in the findings returned by the trial judge and, therefore, rejected the petition on its own merit.

Two concurrent findings have come to be recorded by the Court below, having no error apparent on the face of record, including the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 9 filed by the petitioner, therefore, I do not see any good ground that may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

At the stage, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-landlord submits that the decree passed by the trial court has already been executed by the executing court, and on 11.11.2022, the possession has been taken pursuant to the said order and the fact regarding satisfaction of decree has come to be recorded by the executing court in its order dated 16.11.2022.

The instructions obtained by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord respondent are taken on record. The possession memo has also been brought on record.

Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the above fact.

In view of the above, I decline to interfere in the matter.

Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.11.2022

P Kesari