Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Sachdeva And 3 Others vs Sri Jitendra Kumar Gupta on 23 May, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93893
Court No. - 50
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 109 of 2023
Revisionist :- Jagdish Sachdeva And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- Sri Jitendra Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Revisionist :- Madhav Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devi Prasad Mishra,Sudeep Harkauli
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 4 of 2024
1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Present Modification application has been filed with the affidavit of Sri Rajedra Kumar Sachdeva, duly signed by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant seeking modification in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024.
3. Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant submitted that in paragraph No. 2 of the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024, interim prayer of the revision has been quoted, whereas, final prayer is required to be quoted. He next submitted in paragraph No. 3, it is observed that learned counsel for the revisionist does not want to contest the revision on merit. In fact neither counsel has received any instruction, nor made any submission to this effect.
4. He next submitted that in light of aforesaid facts, modifications so required may be made by substituting final prayer in place of interim prayer in paragraph No. 2 and in paragraph No. 3 by substituting expression "revisionist has failed to made out case for interference with the impugned judgment and order " in place of expression "he does not want to contest the revision on merit and some time may be granted to vacate the house as well as go-down & shop in question."
5. Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the opposite party has objected the submission of learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist and submitted that Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant based upon instruction has given statement before the Court that he does not want to contest the revision on merits and also requested to grant time to vacate the house as well go-down & shop in question.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. For substitution of final prayer in place of interim prayer in paragraph No. 2 of the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024, remedy before the revisionist is to file correction application, as it is not the case of modification. Hence the present prayer for modification in paragraph No. 2 of the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 is hereby rejected with liberty to revisionist to file correction application.
8. So far as modification in paragraph No. 3 of judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 is concerned, the same is highly misconceived. In fact, case was heard on 22.04.2024 and when the Court was inclined to dismiss the revision, Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant requested to adjourn the case for tomorrow to enable him to seek instruction from his client to vacate the premises in question. On his request, Court has passed the following order:
1. Heard Shri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for opposite party.
2. On the request of learned counsel for revisionists, put up this case as fresh tomorrow i.e. 23.04.2024 at 10:15 AM to enable him to seek instruction from his client."
9. Based upon instruction, on the next date i.e. 23.04.2024 Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant has given statement at the Bar that he does not want to press the revision and a reasonable time may be granted to vacate the house as well as go-down & shop in question and thereafter, with the consent of Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for opposite party, revisionist was granted six months time to vacate the house in question and one year time to vacate the go-down and shop in question with certain conditions.
10. It is very surprising that on the one hand, Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant has requested for time from the Court to seek instruction from his client and based upon the instruction he has given statement before the Court to grant some time to vacate the house as well as go-down & shop in question without contesting the revision and on the other hand he has taken entirely different stand denying the statement so given by him at the Bar before the Court. Therefore, prayer for modification in paragraph No. 3 of the judgment and order dated 23.04.2024 is also rejected.
11. The conduct of Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant is very unfair and Court highly depreciates the same.
12. With the aforesaid observation, modification application is hereby dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
ADY
