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


Ravi Pra Bhalla (Since Dead) Thereafter Maheep Singh & Ors.5 v. Vishwa N.P.Chaurasia (Since Dead)There. R.D. Chaurasia & Ors - WRIT - A No. 7005 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2171 (9 February 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).


     Court no. 7                                                        

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7005 of 2007

 Ravi Prakash Bhalla and others   versus  Vishwanath Prasad Chaurasia

                                                                               and others


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad  for release of the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the respondents on the ground of their personal needs. Respondents filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the aforesaid release application. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 16.3.1992 rejected the release application.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.3.1992 the petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 99 of 1992 before the Appellate Court which is still pending.

According to the petitioners, respondents are frequently taking dates after dates which the Court below has readily allowed and is not deciding the appeal.

If a party is frequently taking dates after dates to delay dispensation of justice there has to be a limit to such tactics adopted by a party. The Courts are not expected to be a party to such tactics by readily giving adjournments in cases just for the asking. The JSCC suits are required to be decided within six months as provided in the Small Causes Courts Act 1887 and within three months by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Uttar Pradesh  Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). Frequent dates should not be given. The Courts have a responsibility to decide the case within the time which has been fixed by the legislation in its wisdom and they have to strive to decide the cases in the time limit so fixed. If they do not do so, it sets a bad precedent opening the Pandora's box for public criticism. Delay erodes the faith of the public in justice of system, hence care should be taken in this regard by the Courts.

The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that a direction may be issued to the Appellate Court to decide the aforesaid appeal within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

Since the petition is not being decided on merit, the Court does not deem necessary in the circumstances to call upon the respondents to file counter affidavit.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Appellate Court to decide the aforesaid appeal in accordance with law on the date fixed or within a period of 1 month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  No order as to costs.

Dated 9.2.2007





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.