Sanjay Kumar Garg And Another vs Devendra Pal Singh And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16683 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117191
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6432 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Garg And Another
 
Respondent :- Devendra Pal Singh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanzeel Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard Mr. Tanzeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The plaintiffs-petitioners have preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

"i) to issue a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh to decide the appeal being Appeal No. 63 of 2022 within specific time period without granting any further adjournments as the hearing has already been concluded on 31.03.2023 "

3. The facts in brief as contained in the present petition are that the petitioners have instituted a Civil Suit No. 50 of 1998 for specific performance of contract. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Aligarh by judgment and decree dated 23.9.2022. The petitioners being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 23.9.2022, have preferred an appeal being civil Appeal No. 63 of 2022 in the court of District Judge, Aligarh. After admitting the appeal, the same was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh. The petitioners also approached this Court by filing a petition, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2161 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Garg & another Vs. Atar Singh & others) for a direction to the court concern for early disposal of the aforesaid civil appeal. The said petition was finally decided by an order dated 14.3.2023, directing the court concern to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessarily adjournment. The order dated 14.3.2023, passed in Matters Under Article 227 No. 2161 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Garg & another Vs. Atar Singh & others) is quoted as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

The basic relief sought by the petitioners in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to direct the court below to decide Civil Appeal No.63 of 2022 (CNR No.UPAL 010121802022) (Sanjay Kumar Garg and another Vs. Atar Singh (died)) expeditiously.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the court concerned to decide the aforesaid appeal strictly in accordance with law unless there is no legal impediment.

It is made clear that the court below will not grant any unnecessary adjournment."

4. When appeal was at final argument stage, the defendant-respondent in appeal, moved transfer application no. 83 of 2023 before the District Judge, Aligarh. The plaintiffs-petitioners have filed their reply to the said transfer application, the District Judge, Aligarh, vide order dated 28.3.2023, has dismissed the transfer application with the findings that the transfer application has been moved only to delay the disposal of the appeal.

5. It is further stated in the petition that thereafter these application Nos. 15Gha & 17Gha for adjournment of the appeal, but the said applications were rejected by the Appellate Court by a detailed order, mentioning therein that the hearing of the appeal has been concluded and the date was fixed for filing case-law. The Court below, after rejecting the aforesaid applications, fixed 11.4.2023 for delivery of the judgment.

6. Thereafter, when the matter was fixed for delivery of the judgment, an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with 151 & 153 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by one Akhilesh Pratap Singh for impleadment in the appeal as respondent, on the ground that he has purchased the said property by registered sale deed dated 27.9.2022. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh, vide order dated 6.4.2023. Again, an application under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Akhilesh Pratap Singh for transfer of the case from Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh to some other Court.

7. The District Judge, Aligarh, by order dated 11.4.2023 without considering any of the grounds mentioned by the petitioners in their objections, has allowed the transfer application only stating therein that the transfer application is worthy to be accepted. With this finding, the appeal has been transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh to the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh.

8. Aggrieved against the order dated 11.4.2023, passed by District Judge, Aligarh, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a petition being Matters Under Article 227 No. 4800 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Garg And Another vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh And 3 Others). After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2023. Operative portion of the order dated 12.5.2023 are quoted as under:-

"23. Perusing the records it is clear that the District Judge, Aligarh, while passing the order dated 11.4.2023 has not at all applied his mind and has not recorded any finding on the objection made by the petitioners regarding maintainability of the application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 24 of C.P.C. provides that the application for transfer may be filed by a party to the proceedings. The applicant of transfer application no. 116 of 2023 was not party to the proceedings, i.e. civil appeal no. 63 of 2022, as such his application was not maintainable. The District Judge, Aligarh has recorded only a conclusion that in facts and circumstances, the application is worthy to be accepted. This clearly shows that while passing the order dated 11.4.2023, the District Judge has not at all applied his mind, and in a mechanical way, the order dated 11.4.2023 has been passed. When the same District Judge on the same allegation has rejected the earlier transfer application no. 83 of 2023, this Court finds that there was no reason with the District Judge to disagree with his own earlier order dated 28.3.2023 especially when no fresh material was brought on record before the District Judge, Aligarh which may justify the passing of the order dated 11.4.2023. Thus, the order dated 11.4.2023 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh in transfer application being contrary to law, is set aside. Transfer Application No. 116 of 2023 filed by the respondent no.1, namely Akhilesh Pratap Singh is rejected. The present petition is allowed.

24. No order as to cost. "

9. It is stated in paragraph no. 25 to the petition that in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 12.5.2023, the entire case file has been transmitted from the court of District Judge, Aligarh to Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh on 22.5.2023. On the said date, again a prayer has been made by the respondents to grant some time to file the rulings/case law relied by them.

10. It is further stated in paragraph no. 27 of the petition that the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Aligarh on 22.5.2023 has granted time to the respondents to file the ruling and fixed the next date on 27.5.2023.

11. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that while passing the order dated 22.5.2023, the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh has not considered the fact that the hearing of the appeal has already been expedited by this Court vide order dated 14.3.2023, by which a specific direction was given by this Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournments.

12. It is further argued that the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh, has also not considered the fact that in the appeal, the hearing has already been concluded and date for judgment in the appeal has been fixed i.e. 11.4.2023.

13. It is next argued that only in order to delay the proceedings, a transfer application has been moved by the respondents which has already been rejected by the District Judge, which has already been

14. It is also argued that again in order to linger the proceeding, an application for impleadment was filed by one Akhilesh Pratap Singh, which was also rejected by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh on 6.4.2023.

15. After rejection of the aforesaid impleadment application, a transfer application was filed, which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh vide order dated 11.4.2023.

16. The order dated 11.4.2023 was challenged before this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 4800 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Garg And Another vs. Akhilesh Pratap Singh And 3 Others) and the petition was allowed vide order dated 12.5.2023, the order dated 11.4.2023 was set-aside.

17. It is argued that the hearing was concluded and the date was fixed for submission of rulings but when the matter was taken-up on 31.3.2023 again applications were filed being Application Nos. 15Gha and 17Gha to adjourned the matter in order to place the necessary case law.

18. After considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is stated by the appellate court in his order dated 31.3.2023 that the hearing has already been concluded, hence the Application Nos. 15Gha and 17Gha, filed for adjournment are rejected.

19. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Appellate Court granting time to the defendants in the appeal, is illegal and a prayer has been made to direct the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh, to decide the appeal being Appeal No. 63 of 2022 within a specific period of time without granting further adjournment.

20. It appears from the perusal of the record that in the aforesaid appeal the arguments have already been concluded and the matter was reserved for delivery of judgment on 11.4.2023. In the meantime, two transfer applications and one impleadment application were filed. Finally when the aforesaid applications were rejected, again an application was filed by the defendants in the appeal, asking time to file the rulings. On the said application, without giving any cogent reasons, the time was granted by the appellate court.

21. From perusal of the record it is clear that earlier the time was granted to file rulings on 29.3.2023 but again the same prayer has been made by the counsel for the defendants to grant some more time to file rulings.

22. It is unfortunate that again the time was granted by the Appellate Court to the defendants in the appeal for filing the rulings.

23. It is further reveals from the perusal of the record that a direction has already been given by this Court vide order dated 14.3.2023 directing the Appellate Court to decide the aforesaid appeal expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment.

24. From perusal of the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the Appellate Court is granting unnecessary adjournment without giving any cogent reasons.

25. In the special facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, the instant petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below before whom the Appeal No. 63 of 2022 is pending to make every endeavour to decide the aforesaid appeal on the next date fixed in the matter i.e. 27.5.2023. On account of any reason, if no orders have been passed, the court below shall decide the appeal on or before 31.5.2023.

Order Date :- 25.5.2023

S.K.