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


Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Samiti And Another v. Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur And Another - WRIT - A No. 52278 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16351 (19 September 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

Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey counsel for the petitioners.

This writ petition arises out of an order dated 26.8.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Room No. 4, Saharanpur- respondent no. 1, appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

By the impugned order, the respondent no. 1 has decreed the suit against the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay the landlord a sum of Rs. 45,125/- and handover vacant peaceful possession of the disputed accommodation to the landlord. .  The Court has also directed that the tenant will pay admitted rent of Rs.3000/- per month to the landlord together with 6% interest on the decretal amount and in case the tenant fails to comply with the order, the landlord would be entitled to get it executed through Court.

The facts of the case, as placed by counsel for the petitioner, are that the the then President, Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Samiti- petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 entered into a registered rent-deed for payment of Rs.3000/- per month as rent for a tenancy of ten years. Since the petitioners defaulted in payment, notice dated 17.12.2003 was sent by the landlord in this regard. The petitioners replied to the notice by registered letter dated 31.12.2003.

Thereafter S.C.C. case no. 2 of 2004 was filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court.

Counsel for the petitioners was not present on 25.8.2006, i.e. on the date fixed in the case.  On the said date, the Court passed the following  order :-

" 25.8.2006

iqdkj djk;h x;h A

oknh gkftj gS] izfroknh xSj gkftj gS A izkFkZuki=k 23&x Onkjk oknh us vUrZxr /kkjk 15 #y 5 izfroknh dh izfrj{kk fujLr djusa dk vuqjks/k fd;k gS izfroknh vuqifLFkr gS A okn dk fuLrkj.k bl izkFkZuki=k dk fuLrkj.k fd;s fcuk vfrf'k?kzrk ls gks ldrk gS A blfy, bl izkFkZuki=k dk fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl dsl esa lk{; fu;r frfFk rd izLrqr fd;k tkos A fnukad 26-8-2006 okLrs lk{; is'k gks A

  gLrk{kj vLi"V"

On 26.8.2006, the impugned order, appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, has been passed by the Authority below.

Before filing this writ petition with a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to hear and decide the case on merits and other respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property under the tenancy of the petitioners, they have neither moved any application before the Court below for recall of the order dated 25.8.2006 nor made any request for allowing them to lead their evidence. They have rushed straightaway to this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution after about four weeks.

No reason has been given in the writ petition as to why counsel for the petitioners had not appeared on 25.8.2006 and 26.8.2006, hence there is no material before this Court to give finding as to whether cause for non-appearance of the counsel was sufficient or not in the facts and circumstances of the case.  

The Court raised a query to the defendant-petitioners as to why their counsel was not present on 25.8.2006.  The counsel for the petitioners informed this Court that the petitioners wanted to change the counsel in the District Court and had asked their counsel not to appear in the case. He further informed the Court that when petitioners went to the Court on 26.8.2006, the order had already been passed.

It is apparent from above that the petitioners had made up their mind to engage another counsel in the case on the date fixed, i.e. 25.8.2006 and had informed their counsel not to appear in the case. However, the petitioners did not engage another counsel, neither the earlier counsel  appeared in the case, as instructed nor the petitioners exercised due diligence to engage another counsel. Admittedly, even when the case was taken up on 26.8.2006 and evidence had been recorded. The petitioners, though present in Court, did not move any application for setting aside the order dated 25.8.2006 nor made any request for allowing them to lead evidence. They have now come up in this writ petition after about 25 days of passing of the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 for execution of decree within a month of the order when decree in terms of order dated 26.8.2006 is about to be executed. The impugned order is as under :-

" lquokbZ ds le; vkSj lk{; izLrqr djrs le; izfroknh Ik{k vuqifLFkr jgk vr% mlds vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k mlds fo#) okn dh dk;Zokgh ,d Ik{kh; #Ik ls pykbZ x;h A  

oknh usa tfj;s 'kiFk Ik= 38x lkk{; izLrqr fd;k rFkk lk{; ds #I esa 40x vfHkys[k Hkh izLrqr fd;k gS A

eSaus miyC?k lk{;ksa ij fopkj fd;k A oknh usa vius 'kiFk Ik= 38x Onkjk okni= dFku lefFkZr vkSj lkfcr fd;s gSa A izfrokn Ik= esa ;g Lohdkj gS fd oknh iz'uxr Hkou dk Lokeh RkFkk edku ekfyd gS vkSj izfroknhx.k mlesa #Ik;s 3000@& ekfld ds fdjk;snkj gSa A okni= esa of.kZr iz'uxr vof/k dk fdjk;k ;k ,d yk[k #Ik;s dh vfxze jkf'k] ftldk fooj.k izfrokn Ik= esa vafdr gS] ds rF;ksa dks fl) djusa dk mRrjnkf;Ro izfroknh Ik{k dk gS D;ksafd ;g rFkk muds fo'ks"k laKku esa gS] dfFkr rF;ksa dks izfroknh Onkjk lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS A blds foijhr oknh Ik{k ds lk{;ksa ls ;g fl) gS fd iz'uxr vof/k dk fdjk;k izfroknhx.k Onkjk mUgsa vnk ugha fd;k x;k gS A ;g Hkh fl) gS fd fdjk;s ds lkFk VSDl dh vnk;xh ds lEcU?k esa okni= dFku lgh gS A vr% okWfNr vuqrks"k gsrq nkok oknh ,d Ik{kh; #Ik ls fMdzh gksus ;ksX; gS A fMdzh dh jkf'k ij okn lafLFkr gksus ds le; ls oknh dks 6 izfr'kr dh nj ls C;kt fnyk;k tkuk Hkh mfpr gksxk A ;g Hkh mfpr gksxk fd tc rd iz'uxr lEifRr dk fjDr vn;klu oknh dks izkIr ugha gksrk] rc fd dh vof/k ds fy, oknh dks mDr Hkou ds iz;ksx ds fy, #Ik;s 3000@& izfrekg dh nj ls {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k Hkh fnykbZ tk;s A


nkok oknh izfroknhx.k ds fo#) lC;; fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS izfroknhx.k dks funsZZZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os #Ik;s 45]125@& dh jkf'k oknh dks vnk djsa A rFkk iz'uxr Hkou dk fjDr v/;klu oknh dks lkSai nsa A okn lafLFkr gksus ds le; ls iz'uxr Hkou dk fjDr v/;klu ikus rd dh vof/k gsrq izfroknhx.k oknh dks #I;s 3000@& ekfld dh nj ls {kfriwfrZ vnk djsaxs A fMdzh dh jkf'k ij oknh 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djusa dk vf/kdkjh gksxk A ;fn ,d ekg ds vUnj izfroknhx.k Onkjk bl fMdzh dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k rks oknh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og bldk fu"iknu izfroknh ds C;; ij tfj;s U;k;ky; lqfuf'pr djk lds A

fnukad 26-8-2006                     g0 vLi"V

                                ih0 ds0 JhokLro

                fo'ks"k@vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] d{k la0 4] lgkjuiqj A"

For the reasons stated above, petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing J.S.C.C revision against the impugned order or filing an application for setting aside the ex parte order in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which they have not availed. Admittedly no application has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside ex parte proceedings and the order impugned nor any revision has been filed by them and they have rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Let certified copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the parties during the course of the date on payment of usual charges.

Dated 19.9.2006



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.