Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJARAM AWASTHI versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajaram Awasthi v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 76138 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7769 (19 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76138 of 2005

Raja Ram Awasthi

Versus

Union of India and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was under taken against the petitioner. On 19.11.2005 a request was made for adjournment. Said request was accepted however, Rs. 250/- was imposed as cost and it was mentioned that if respondent fails to deposit the cost then matter will be proceeded exparte.  Order passed by Estate Officer is being quoted below:

"19.11.2005- The petitioner with his counsel is present. An application has been moved on behalf respondent praying adjournment of the case on the ground of illness of his counsel. The application is not accompanied with any medical certificate. It is observed that no. of adjournments has been granted to respondent. Accordingly the application is allowed on cost of Rs. 250/- (Rs. Two hundred fifty only). The next date fixed in the case is 02.12.2005 at 3.00 P.M. It is further ordered that if respondent fails to deposit cost by the next date fixed, case will be proceeded ex-parte against respondent. Both the parties are directed to note above."

On the next date fixed on 02.12.2005 as the cost has not been paid as such directives were issued for proceedings exparte. The order passed on 02.12.2005 is being quoted below:

" 02.12.2005- Petitioner with counsel is present. The respondent appears in person. His counsel has not turned up. Previous order dated 19.11.2005 has not been complied with by respondent. On last date respondent sought adjournment on illness of his counsel. The same was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 250/- (Rs. Two hundred fifty only).

Today case was listed at 3.00 P.M.. Now it is 4.50 P.M. Respondent filed an adjournment application. Opposed by petitioner's counsel. The case vide order dated 04.07.2005 was listed for evidence and final hearing but no evidence was filed by respondent till date.

This application filed on date is rejected. The case shall proceed ex-parte as per order dated 19.11.2005. The next date fixed 22.12.2005 for ex-parte hearing at 3.30 P.M.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he was ready to deposit the amount but said amount was refused to be accepted, by respondent No. 4 as such impossible situation has been created and on account of the same the right of the petitioner has been seriously prejudice.

Sri Tarun Verma, Advocate, representing Punjab National Bank contended that even if on 22.12.2005 said amount is permitted to be  deposited then directives be issued for deciding the matter as petitioner is unnecessarily perpetuating  himself in the premises in question.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed position is that adjournment was granted on 19.11.2005 subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 250/. Petitioner has contended that he went to deposit the aforesaid amount with Punjab National Bank, Nirala Nagar Kanpur and then refusal was made to accept such amount.

Contention of the petitioner does not appear to be incorrect, as such in over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that on 22.12.2005 petitioner shall appear in person and deposit amount of Rs. 250/- with the Estate Officer, himself and thereafter said Officer shall proceed to decide the matter within next six weeks without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

Consequently present writ petition succeeds and allowed.

19.12.2005

Dhruv  

 


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.