Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Committee Of Arya Samaj Anathalaya v. Judge Small Causes Cases & Others - WRIT - A No. 41385 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12751 (2 August 2006)


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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the S.C.C. suit no. 27 of 2003- Committee of Arya Samaj Anathalay Bareilly Vs. Shivnath and another  within some stipulated period fixed by the Court.

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that series of adjournments have been granted by the Court below for the purpose of cross examination of the respondents. for the reasons best known to it and the Court below is not deciding the case in spite of the fact that evidence has been led by the parties.  

Mandamus cannot be issued until and unless expedite application is moved before the concerned Court. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the proper remedy.  It appears that the petitioner has rushed to invoke writ jurisdiction without exhausting appropriate remedy of moving expedite application before the Court below.

The petitioner may move application for expedite hearing of the case before the concerned Court below and if such an application is moved, the Court below may pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of submission of the application.  It is expected that the subordinate courts do not grant adjournments on frivolous grounds as ''delay denies justice'. Subordinate Courts should keep it in mind that too many latitude is lethal to justice.

Since this writ petition has been filed without exhausting the appropriate remedy which has resulted in unnecessary wastage of precious time of the Court, the petitioner is directed to deposit a fine of Rs.1000/- with the Registrar General of this court under the head ''Fine' within a period of two weeks from today for rushing to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which amounts to hamper dispensation of justice and causing undue delay in decision of dispute requiring findings of facts which could very well have been decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.  The Courts/authorities below shall entertain any application/petition after petitioner produces cash receipt of deposit of the aforesaid amount before the Registrar General of this Court.

Dated. 2nd August, 2006



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.