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


Ram Chandra Maurya v. Addl. District Judge-5, Allahabad & Another - WRIT - A No. - 42161 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15567 (14 September 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).


(Judgment reserved on 07.09.2007)

(Judgment delivered on 14.09.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42161 of 2007

Ram Chandra Maurya Vs. Additional District Judge and another

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the landlord respondent, who has appeared through caveat and also filed counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.

Property in dispute is a house. Petitioner is tenant and respondent No.2 Brij Behari Lal @ Lal Babu Srivastava is landlord of the house in dispute. Landlord filed suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No.08 of 2006. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.02.2007 by A.D.J., Court No.5, Allahabad acting as J.S.C.C. Petitioner was directed to be evicted and decree for recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs.2500/- was also passed. Petitioner filed restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Case No.18 of 2007. The said restoration application was dismissed in default of the petitioner on 07.07.2007. For setting aside the said order, another application was filed by the petitioner on 03.08.2007, copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In Paragraph-3 of the said application, it was stated that petitioner's family had gone to his native village in District Sant Kabir Nagar during summer vacations, and petitioner had gone to bring his family, hence he could not attend the case on 07.07.2007. The second restoration application was registered as Misc. Case No.33 of 2007 and was rejected by A.D.J. Court No.5, Allahabad on 27.08.2007, which order has been challenged through this writ petition.

A lot of litigation in the form of civil as well as criminal proceedings is going on in between the parties. Apart from it both the parties have also filed complaints and applications against each other in different forums like Power Corporation, Bar Council etc. Petitioner has already filed five writ petitions in this Court, details of which have been given in Paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit. Most of the writ petitions are criminal miscellaneous writ petitions. One of the writ petitions was numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4296 of 2007. In the said writ petition on 01.02.2007, an order was passed giving another opportunity to the petitioner to file fresh application if he so liked in view of his oral undertaking given to the court earlier to vacate the accommodation within one year. However, the said writ petition was got dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner on 29.08.207.

The court below rejected the second restoration application of the petitioner on the ground that in the aforesaid writ petition he had given undertaking to vacate within a year. The court below also noted that eight or ten order had been passed writ petitions by the High Court. Court below also held that the ground taken in the restoration application was not at all tenable. I fully agree with the view taken by the court below. Petitioner is an advocate, hence he is supposed to be more careful in the litigation than an ordinary litigant. Lot of litigation is already going on in between the parties including six or seven writ petitions pending in this Court. Absolutely no emergency was shown in the second restoration application to leave Allahabad on the date, which was fixed in the first restoration application. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to satisfy the court regarding compliance of provisions of Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Decreed rent @ Rs.2500/- was not deposited. Learned counsel has argued that deposit was made @ Rs.1,000/- per month. Under Section 17, P.S.C.C., Act, entire decreetal amount is either to be deposited or security to be furnished after obtaining permission of the court. Neither of these two things was done.

Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned orders. Writ petition is, therefore, 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.