High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Gyatri Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 43750 of 2003  RD-AH 16153 (15 September 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition, are that Sri Rama Kant Agarwal was the owner of the disputed property and Smt. Kusum Lata Goel, respondent no. 2 was holder of power of attorney. Sri Rama Kant Agarwal sold plots to different persons including the petitioner.
A suit for specific performance of agreement was filed by the petitioner and other purchasers. The suit was disposed of on the basis of compromise dated13.4.1980 entered into between the parties. Sri Munish Goel, husband of respondent no. 2, who happens to be an Advocate, was also a witness to the compromise. It is claimed by the petitioner that he constructed his own house after making huge investments and started living in the said house.
It is alleged that Sri Munish Chandra Goel, Advocate started harassing the petitioner with mal intention of extracting illegal money and, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to lodge criminal complaint against him in the Bar Council of India which found that the petitioner is owner of the property and Sri Munish Gupta was found guilty of misconduct and as such was debarred for two years from practicing in any Court of law in India which was affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. It is alleged that thereafter respondent no. 2 filed a frivolous suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner who contested the suit by filing application 118-Gha, claiming himself to be owner of the property and that the suit was not cognizable by Judge Small Causes Court.
It is apparent that application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the plea of the petitioner shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the case.
Aggrieved against the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the application 118-Gha moved by the petitioner goes into the root of the case and before deciding the suit, it is imperative on the part of the Courts below have to decided the application of the petitioner finally.
Though normally the High Court does not interfere in interlocutory orders but where it is found that Court below has not decided the matter going to the very root of the dispute and decision of such application may itself result in no further proceedings, such an application should and must be decided first so that disputes are decided speedily. Keeping such application pending for years till time of final hearing should be avoided as it not only gives undue advantage to one party but also morally supports undue process of law which should be avoided by the Courts.
For the reasons stated above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Court below shall decide the suit, after considering the issue as to whether the suit is maintainable or not, within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.