Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ALAKH NATH versus A.D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Alakh Nath v. A.D.J. - WRIT - A No. 19566 of 1993 [2005] RD-AH 7825 (20 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.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19566 of 1993

Alakh Nath Versus VII Additional District Judge and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard Sri S.M.Dayal learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent.

This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by landlord respondents Ram Kumar and others in the form of SCC Suit No. 811 of 1984. Suit was filed on the ground of default. Relief of recovery of rent was also prayed for. On behalf of the plaintiffs, R.K.Sharma was examined as witness. On behalf of defendant petitioner Alakh Nath examined himself as witness but he did not present himself for cross examination. The I Additional JSCC, Kanpur Nagar found the defendant to be defaulter and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 18.5.1992. Against the said judgment and decree petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 131 of 1992. VII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the revision through judgment and order dated 25.2.1993, hence this writ petition.

The revisional court also examined in detail the plea of the defendant petitioner that he was not defaulter. All the amounts deposited by him towards rent under section 30 of U.P Act No.13 of 1972 in the court of Munsif (City) Kanpur were taken into consideration. According to the revisional court tenant nowhere alleged that he had paid rent from 7.11.1978 to 6.2.1982. Revisional court also took into consideration the fact that defendant did not make himself available for cross-examination hence his examination in chief could not be taken into consideration.

I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, decree and order.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.

Waqar

20.12.2005


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.