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


Smt. Kaneez Bano v. Iind A.D.J. - WRIT - A No. 15609 of 1989 [2005] RD-AH 7119 (7 December 2005)


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.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 1989

Smt.Kaneez Bano and others Vs.  The IInd A.D.J., Bareilly and others


This is landlords' writ petition.  Landlords filed suit for eviction against tenant-respondent no.2- Mohd. Umar being SCC suit no.31 of 1984.  The suit was decreed ex-parte by JSCC, Bareilly on 17.5.1988.  In the suit plaintiff filed affidavit to prove his case.  Against ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.5.1988 tenant-respondent no.2 filed SCC revision no.15 of 1988.  Revisional court allowed the revision on 1.8.1989 only on the ground that affidavit could not be taken into consideration while deciding the suit as it had not been filed with the permission of the court as required under Order 19 Rule 1 C.P.C.  According to the said Rule any court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit.  Revisional court therefore allowed the revision set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and remanded back the case to the trial court for decision afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence.  This writ petition by the landlords is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order of the revisional court dated 1.8.1989.  Meanwhile possession had been taken by the plaintiff-landlords under ex-parte decree on 27.8.1988.

As the matter came up for hearing before this court after about sixteen years hence I directed both the learned counsel to ask their clients to explore the chances of compromise.  Learned counsel for tenant-respondent no.2 Shri Subodh Kumar has stated that inspite of several letters including a registered letter his client has not responded.

It appears that respondent no.2 has lost all interest in the case.  If respondent no.2 is not at all interested in the case, no useful purpose will be served by directing/permitting the JSCC to decide the suit afresh.

In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the order of the revisional court dated 1.8.1989 shall not be given effect to and suit (SCC) suit no.31 of 1984 shall not be re-heard in pursuance of remand order dated 1.8.1989 passed by IIIrd A.D.J., Bareilly provided that petitioners-landlords pay Rs.15,000/- to respondent no.2 through draft drawn in favour of respondent no.2.  The amount shall be paid within three months from today failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed and the suit must be re-heard in pursuance of remand order dated 1.8.1989.




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.