Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATISH CHANDRA JAIN versus D.J. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satish Chandra Jain v. D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 33941 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 11740 (11 July 2007)

 

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. 7                                                        

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33941 of 1997

Satish Chandra Jain          versus    Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge

                                                       Deoband, Saharanpur and another.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition is off-shoot of Writ Petition no. 15988 of 1997 which has been dismissed  as infructous vide order dated 11.7.2007 on the statement of  counsel for the petitioner that the Prescribed Authority has decided the recall application.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur for release of the disputed shop under the tenancy of respondent no.2 on the ground of establishing his son Sanjog Kumar in business. The aforesaid application was registered as P.A. Case no. 10 of 1990 which is still pending before the Prescribed Authority concerned.

The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that a direction may be issued to the Court below to decide P.A. Case no. 10 of 1990 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court as the matter is quite old.

The counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Court below to decide P. A. Case no. 10 of 1990 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  No order as to costs.

Dated 11.7.2007

CPP/-

             

 


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.