High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rameshwar Singh v. The D.J., Shahjahanpur & Another - WRIT - C No. 37418 of 1995  RD-AH 8030 (22 December 2005)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.37418 OF 1995
Rameshwar Singh .....Petitioner
The District Judge Shahjahanpur and
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 7.10.95 by which, the Court below has rejected two applications filed by the petitioner, one being application No.IOC for permission to file an additional evidence and another application No.17-A for amendment in the memo of revision.
The stage for the proceedings at present is that the revision itself is pending. The suit had been decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff petitioner. The respondents filed a restoration application under Order 19 Rule 13, which was allowed by the Court below vide order dated 14.2.1995. Against the order of restoration, the petitioner filed a Revision No. 17/1995 before the District Judge.
Thereafter, the petitioner had moved two applications as has been stated above. Those two applications had been decided against the petitioner by way of a reasoned order. The revision is being pending since 1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no new case is being made out. The petitioner is only seeking to add the date of knowledge of the respondent as 4.1.94 and he has moved an application for restoration on 3.8.94.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the amendment, which he is seeking will not change the nature of the case in the said proceedings also.
Learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously argued that these applications could not have been allowed under Order 44 Rule 27 aa because the petitioner did not exercise due diligence in approaching the Court with the amendment so sought.
In my opinion, since a revision is still pending, the petitioner has adequate opportunity of putting his case before a revisional Court. Objection raised by the respondent counsel is valid and accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly argued that such matters could not be agitated before the writ court.
In view of the submissions made above by the respondents counsel, I find that there is no merit in the case. However, since the matter is pending for the last ten years before the revisional Court, I direct the revisional Court to give an early hearing of both sides and to dispose of the revision itself, if possible, within a period of six months.
However, it is also made clear that no unreasonable adjournment shall be granted to either side.
This petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dated : 22.12.05
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.