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


Hakim Ahmad @ Saied Ahmad Kuraisi v. A.D.J. -Vii, Bulandshahar And Others - WRIT - A No. 24756 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8952 (4 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24796 of 2006

Hakim Ahmad @ Saied Ahmad Kuraisi


Additional District Judge- VII, Bulandshahr

& Others.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J,

Heard Sri Rajiv Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by Additional District Judge VII, Bulandshahr rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to direct the plaintiff-respondent to provide him a photocopy of the alleged diary in which the payment of rent was recoded in order to facilitate him in filing an effective written statement.

The facts are that respondent no. 2 /landlord filed SCC Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the premises in dispute. It was stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint that he recorded the payment of rent made by the tenant in a diary. The tenant/petitioner before filing the written statement moved an application that landlord-respondent be directed to provide a photocopy of the said diary. The trial court dismissed the said application.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an effective written statement cannot be filed unless the photocopy of the said diary is provided. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is for the landlord-respondent to produce evidence in support of the allegations made in the plaint. The tenant-petitioner cannot compel him to supply the photocopy of the said diary for filing an effective written statement. I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is dismissed summarily.

Dt. 4.5.2006


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.