Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Km. Radha Sharma v. Civil Judge & Others - WRIT - A No. 21812 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8057 (20 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21812 of 2006

Km. Radha Sharma


Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hathras, District Hathras & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agrawal appearing for the contesting respondents.

Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 20.2.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, pending before the Prescribed Authority.

The facts are that respondent no. 2, which is a trust and managed by respondents no. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the building which was in tenancy of respondents no. 5 to 7 was in a  dilapidated condition. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner for being impleaded in the proceedings on the ground that she was the grand daughter of the original tenant late Sri Bhoop Singh. After death of Bhoop Singh his four sons inherited tenancy and after death of her father who was one of the son of Bhoop singh she has inherited the tenancy and is co-tenant along with respondents no 5,6 and 7 who are her uncles. The trial court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate as to how she is the heir of deceased/tenant Bhoop Singh and also that it has been filed at the stage of arguments after lapse of 8 years.

I have perused the impleadment application filed by the petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It has been stated in the application that after death of her grand father and her parents she has become the tenant and the parties to be proceedings in connivance with each other wants to evict her and as such she should be impleaded as a party.  

A perusal of the said application demonstrates that the petitioner even failed to disclose the name of her deceased father. In absence of necessary pleadings and facts in the application to demonstrate that she was the grand-daughter of deceased-tenant Bhoop Singh and after death of her father has become the tenant. the Court below has rightly rejected the application with a finding that she has failed to demonstrate how she is the heir of deceased/tenant.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed in limine.

Dt. 20.4.2006


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.