High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S. Bansal T.V. Centre v. D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 317 of 1998  RD-AH 9613 (16 May 2006)
Court No. 28
CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITON NO. 317 OF 1998
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.