TEJPAL SINGH versus MAHANT BABA DEVI NATH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Tejpal Singh v. Mahant Baba Devi Nath - WRIT - C No. 24063 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8831 (2 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

           Court No. 24

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  24063 of 2006

Tej Pal Singh ................  ........Petitioner.

Vs.

Mahant Baba Devi Das   ......... Respondent.

***

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. People seem to lab our under the impression that for every wrong, there is a writ petition, just as for every ill, there is a pill.

2. This is what has happened here. The remedy of a revision was available, which was not availed of  and a writ petition has been filed.

3. In the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad  (Small Cause Court Jurisdiction), a suit No. 30 of 2003 for recovery of rent was filed, in which parties,  landlord and the tenant filed a written agreement.  Before it could be verified, the plaintiff-respondent  made an application to the court that some important points were not mentioned in the compromise application and he sought to withdraw the compromise application. Despite objection, by the tenant-petitioner, the Court allowed the application, paper No. 34 Ga of the plaintiff and rejected the compromise filed  by the parties, vide order dated 18.3.2006. It is against the said order dated 18.3.2006, the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant.

4. Sri Yogendra Nath Rai, learned  counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

5. Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act is as follows:

" 25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes:- The High Court, for the purposes of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit."

6. It will appear that Section 25 of the Act provides for revision against an order of the Small Cause Court. Since this was clearly a case decided, a revision lay against the order  and a revision should have been filed. Since  the relief has not been sought in accordance with law,  I am disposing of this petition saying that no writ lies  and a revision should have been preferred.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 2.5.2006

  n.u.

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 |

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