Bombay High Court
Mrs. Hazra Khatoon, Thr. Poa. ... vs Union Of India Thr. Secretary Of ... on 16 August, 2017
Bench: M.S. Sanklecha
(904) CRA 438-17
Sarnobat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 438 OF 2017
IN
MISC. APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2017
IN
CASE NO. 8271/SCS-2674/14/HK/2015
Mrs. Hazra Khatoon. .. Applicant
Vs.
Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents.
Mr. Samir Sarambalkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Dr. G.R. Sharma a/w Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATE : 16th AUGUST, 2017.
P. C. :
1. This civil revision application challenges order dated 3rd
August, 2017 passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Bombay.
By the impugned order the applicant's appeal under Section 9 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 (Act) was
dismissed.
2. Mr. Sarambalkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
states that the challenge in this CRA is only on the ground that impugned
order has been passed with material irregularity inasmuch as its
submission before the Principal Judge of City Civil Court Bombay, that a
letter dated 29th January, 1994 addressed by Station Headquarters
(904) CRA 438-17
(respondents) to him indicated that on the applicant depositing an amount
of Rs.15,000/- Kiosks would be allotted to him, in the defence area.
However, the same has not been allotted to him till date. Therefore, the
eviction under the Act before allotment of Kiosks, was not justified.
3. I find no mention of the aforesaid submission in the impugned
order. Therefore, one has to proceed on the basis that it was not made.
However, Mr. Sarambalkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
states that the submission was made before the Court, yet the impugned
order does not even deal with it and, therefore, this CRA be admitted and
stay granted.
4. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Ramdas Nayak 1982 (2) SCC, 463 and in Central Bank of India Vs.
Vrajlal Kuperchand Gandhi, 2003 (6) SCC 573 happening in court as
recorded in the order of the court are conclusive If a party thinks
happening in Court is not properly recorded, then, the party must move
that very Court to have the correct facts brought on record. It is not open
to a party to make a grievance before the higher forum that the lower
authority has not recorded the submissions made by the party and
therefore, not dealt with.
5. In the above view, the applicant seeks two weeks time to
(904) CRA 438-17
make an appropriate application to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court to
have the fact of the above submission being made before him before
passing the impugned order, on record.
6. In the above view, at the request of the petitioner, the petition
is adjourned to 29th August, 2017. The respondents are directed not to
take any coercive step to evict the Applicant till 31st August, 2017.
7. Stand over to 29th August, 2017.
[ M. S. SANKLECHA, J. ]
