Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHEKHAR SINHA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shekhar Sinha v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 221 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5863 (2 April 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

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Cause shown for laches is found sufficient. The delay is condoned.

This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-landlord being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 10.11.2004 and the appellate order dated 27.9.2006 passed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order as his application for issuing fresh commission through Commissioner-Amin in respect with the property in question which is allegedly in the possession of the plaintiff-defendant as alleged tenant has been wrongly rejected. The trial Court vide its order dated 10.11.2004 passed an injunction order in favour of the tenant-plaintiff with the direction that the plaintiff could not be evicted during the pendency of the suit from the premises in question disclosed in the site plan illegally against law. The revisional Court vide its order dated 27.9.2006 held that there is no requirement of any further appointment of the commissioner for framing the site plan and submitting its report as there already exists site plan and report of the Commissioner-Amin on record only on the ground that the Commissioner has submitted the report in collusion with the plaintiff-tenant. This was a question of evidence and required no fresh report as the order dated 10.11.2004 was only in respects with the interim injunction against which appeal has been filed.

I have looked into the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and find that no pulpable error apparent on the face of the record calling for any interference at this stage invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  

The application is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.  

April 2, 2007

Hasnain

wp.221.07


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.