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


M/S. Bansal T.V. Centre v. D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 317 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 9613 (16 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).


Court No. 28


M/s  Sri Bansal  T.V. Centre


District Judge  Muzaffarnagar & ors.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri  P.K. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Khanna appearing for the respondent no. 5.

The respondent no.2 to 9 filed SCC suit no. 52 of 1994 for arrears of  rent and ejectment. The suit was contested by the petitioner.  Apart from other one of the  grounds  taken in the written statement was that provision of the  U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable over the premises in dispute.

During the pendency of the proceedings the respondent/landlord moved an application to summon the  municipal record relating  to the sanction of map for construction of the building. The application was moved on the ground that the original sanction order has been misplaced and the application  for issuing of the  certified copy of the same  has been rejected by the  municipal authority as such the record may be summoned. The trial court vide order dated 10.12.1997 dismissed the application. Aggrieved  the respondent / landlord filed a revision. The revisional court vide order dated 12.12.1997 allowed the  same against which the  instant writ petition has been filed.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that revision was allowed ex-parte without any notice  or  opportunity  of hearing   to the petitioner as such the  impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice.

The learned counsel for the respondents/landlord has tried to justify the impugned order.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the  record.

From perusal of the impugned judgment as well as from the pleadings of the parties it is no doubt correct that revisional order seems to have been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

A perusal of the revisional court order further  goes to show that the revision has been allowed on the ground that no prejudice would be caused by summoning the concerned record from municipal authority.

It is no doubt correct that revisional court's  order is an ex-parte order  and has been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, question which arises is whether  an interference should be made by this court in exercise of powers conferred  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?

The application filed by the respondents /landlord for summoning the municipal record was  resisted  by the tenant /petitioner  only on the ground that said application has been moved with intention to delay the disposal of the proceedings.

Be that as it may, the final disposal of the proceedings have already been delayed by about 8 years during which the matter has remained pending before this court.  Any remand to the revisional court to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parities will further delay the disposal of the proceedings.

It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that municipal record relating to the sanction of  construction of the disputed building has no relevancy for decision of the issue regarding applicability of the  U.P.  Act No. XIII of 1972 and the same can be  proved by the respondent/landlord by producing the assessment register and  other evidence in  that regard as such there was no necessity to summon the same. The question whether the record relating to the sanction of construction will have any relevancy or not will be decided by the trial court and the record shall not be relied upon as  evidence unless it has any relevancy.

Although the revisional  court cannot be said to be legally justified in allowing the revision ex-parte without any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,  however  since the summoning of the record is not going to cause any prejudice to the petitioner and any interference  by this  court  in the impugned order would result  in further delay in disposal of the proceedings,  I refuse  to interfere in the impugned order.

The suit filed by the petitioner is pending since 1994. The trial court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.




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.