High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kaushal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 5855 of 2006  RD-AH 12165 (25 July 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5855 of 2001
Mustaqim Beg Versus District Judge, Agra and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
An application filed by the landlord was dismissed in default on 19.5.1993. The petitioner is tenant. A restoration application was moved by the landlord on 22.2.1994 which was allowed. The case was restored to its original number and release order was also alleged to have been passed exparte without notice to the tenant-petitioner. On coming to know about the restoration of the case and the alleged exparte release order the petitioner moved restoration application. After exchange of replies to the restoration application, the Prescribed Authority/ IVth Addl.Civil Judge, Agra rejected the restoration application of the petitioner.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, Agra and sought stay of dispossession from the accommodation in question which is still pending and no order has been passed as yet.
This writ petition has been filed with the allegations that since no order has been passed on the petitioner's stay application, he apprehends his dispossession/eviction from the accommodation in question.
At the time of admission the following order was passed on 16.2.2001.
Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 3.1.2001 shall remain stayed and petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the accommodation in question until further orders.
Counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 20.3.2001 and repeatedly the time was allowed to file rejoinder affidavit but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed as yet by the petitioner although more than 5 years have passed.
Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior counsel for the respondents states that this petition may be disposed of by directing the Court below to decide the revision of the petitioner within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.
Though counter affidavit had been filed in the year 2001 and no rejoinder to it has been filed as yet, the interim order ought to have been vacated under Article 226(3) of the Constitution. The counsel for the petitioner prays that instead of allowing the writ petition with a direction to the Court below to decide the revision within a time bound frame fixed by this Court, he may granted further time to file rejoinder affidavit.
There appears to be no reason for allowing time to the counsel for the petitioner as the counsel for the respondents has made a statement that the writ petition be allowed with a direction to the Court below to decide the revision within a time bound frame fixed by this Court. However, the counsel for the petitioner is insisting upon to file rejoinder affidavit. Even in these circumstances, let rejoinder affidavit be filed within two weeks. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost to the respondent.
List on 10th August, 2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.