High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kumar Jain v. Ashok Kumar Jain And Others - WRIT - A No. 28421 of 2006  RD-AH 10350 (25 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28421 of 2006
Ram Kumar Jain
Ashok Kumar Jain & Others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J,
Heard Sri M.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Proceedings for release of the accommodation in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were initiated by the respondent no.1-landlord. The petitioner-tenant contested the proceedings by filing written statement. After the stage of evidence was over, the petitioner-tenant moved an application numbered as 86-Ga for summoning the record of Case No. 14 of 2004. The said application was strongly objected by respondent-landlord. The trial court vide order dated 31.3.2006 rejected the application on the ground that the tenant-petitioner was allowed a number of opportunities for filing evidence but filed only one evidence. Even after the stage of evidence was over he was allowed time to produce additional evidence, but he failed to produce any additional evidence and the said opportunity was also closed. Subsequently on an application, the order was recalled on payment of cost. The tenant petitioner even thereafter has neither produced any additional evidence nor deposited the cost. Instead the application for summoning the record of case no. 14 of 2004 has been moved. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the order which has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 29.4.2006.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 31.3.2006 closing his opportunity of producing additional evidence as well as order dated 29.4.2006 rejecting the recall application.
The trial court has recorded a categorical finding that even after the evidence was closed on the request of tenant-petitioner he was allowed a number of opportunities to adduce additional evidence. Even when the opportunity to adduce additional evidence was also closed, on an application moved by him, the order was recalled and he was allowed to adduce additional evidence on payment of cost. He has neither deposited the cost nor produced any additional evidence instead he has moved an application with sole intention to delay the proceedings.
In view of aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court with regard to conduct of the tenant- petitioner which makes it apparent that all sorts of measures have been adopted by him to delay the proceedings, I find no illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the application to summon the record of Case No. 14 of 2004 and to close the opportunity to produce additional evidence.
The writ petition accordingly fails, and is dismissed summarily.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.