Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. RADHA SAXENA versus R.C. & E.C./CITY MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Radha Saxena v. R.C. & E.C./City Magistrate And Others - WRIT - A No. 7049 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2185 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

     Court no. 7                                                        

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7049 of 2007

Smt. Radha Saxena          versus      R.C.& E.O./City Magistrate,

                                                         Shahjahanpur and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur for release of the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the respondents. The aforesaid application was registered as Case No. 1 of 2005, Smt. Radha Saxena Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices, Shahjahanpur. Respondents filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the aforesaid release application. The petitioner also filed her reply thereto.

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

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 Court below to decide the aforesaid case 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 Court below to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  No order as to costs.

Dated 9.2.2007

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.