High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sushil Kumar And Another v. Om Prakash Shop Keeper And Others - WRIT - A No. 56638 of 2003  RD-AH 8374 (25 April 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56638 of 2003
Sushil Kumar and another
Om Prakash Shop Keeper and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
This writ petition when called upon today the counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Virendra Kumar, made statement that this writ petition has become infructuous because of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute out side the Court.
This writ petition was initially decided by this Court by its judgment and order dated 5th September 2005 when this Court directed as under:-
"In view of what has been stated above I find that this order passed by the revisional court cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the revisional court is quashed. The matter is now remanded back to the trial court to decide the controversy afresh in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of rival parties and on the basis of evidence already on the record. Since the matter is fairly old the trial court shall decide the matter within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment before it."
Against the judgment and order dated 5th September 2005 Om Prakash and others preferred before the Apex Court a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23561 of 2005. The Apex Court granted the leave of the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition being Civil Appeal No.1221 of 2006. The Apex Court has passed the following order:-
Learned counsel for the parties agree that in pursuance of the remand order passed by the High Court, both the parties will have a right to lead further evidence, if any, before the concerned Court decides the matter in pursuance of the remand order. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to permit parties to lead further evidence before finally deciding the case.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has observed that the trial court should decide the matter within three months in view of the fact that it is a very old matter. The period of three months has already expired. Now, the High Court will decide the matter expeditiously on a priority basis, if possible, within three months.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
In the last sentence of the order it appear that the phrase 'High Court' is a typing mistake for the phrase 'Trial Court' which is also clear from the order which is under the signature of Sri T.N. Sansi, the relevant paragraph of which is reproduced below:-
"The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that the trial court should decide the matter within three months in view of the fact that it is a very old matter. The period of three months has already expired. Now the trial (this word trial written by hand) Court will decide the matter expeditiously on a priority basis, if possible, within three months."
Today when the case is called upon, as stated above, one of the counsel for the petitioners made the aforesaid statement. To me it appears in view of the order passed by the Apex Court that the matter should go back to the trial court as directed by the judgment and order dated 5th September 2005 passed by this Court as modified by the order dated 20.2.2006 of the Apex Court and before the Trial Court the parties should raise such contentions as are open to them including the present as stated by counsel appearing before this Court.
The Registrar General is directed to transmit the records of this Court long with the order passed by the Apex Court to the Trial Court at the earliest.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.