Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHANGU RAM PATWA versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahangu Ram Patwa v. Smt. Gayatri Devi - WRIT - C No. - 62357 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18888 (17 December 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in JSCC Suit No. 20 of 1983 that had been filed by Smt. Gayatri Devi who has been arrayed as the sole respondent in this petition.

The suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 23.1.1987 and the respondent was directed to vacate the shop within a period of one month. The Civil Revision filed under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was dismissed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Ghazipur by the judgment and order dated 8.5.1991 and Writ Petition No. 22071 of 1991 that had been filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 18.9.2007. The petitioner was granted six months time to vacate the premises provided he gave an undertaking before the Trial Court that he would vacate and handover possession of the property to the respondent and would pay damages. The petitioner did not submit any undertaking. The Execution Case, which had earlier been filed by the landlord, again proceeded after the writ petition had been dismissed. The petitioner then filed an application in the Execution Case with a prayer that as the judgment and order dated 23.1.1987 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts was modified by the High Court on 18.9.2007, the execution should not proceed. This application was rejected by the Executing Court holding that the conditions stipulated in the judgment and order of this Court had not been complied with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the conditions stipulated in the judgment and order dated 18.9.2007 of this Court had not been complied with but what he submits is that as the Review Petition is pending, the execution should not proceed. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Court below was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 17.12.2007

Sharma/62357


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.