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


Mahesh Chand v. M/S Basanti Devi Family Trust Ghaziabad Thru' Its Trustee - WRIT - C No. 54681 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17161 (4 October 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 V.K. Jaiswal counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.K. Gupta, counsel for the respondents.

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed suit registered as P.A. Case no. 35 of 2004 for ejectment against the petitioner, Sri Shailesh Chand and Sri Kishan Mohan Singhal before Judge Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad.  An amendment application was moved on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 for impleadment of M/s. Basanti Lal as defendant no. 4.

It appears from record that another amendment application was moved by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that after the amendment in the plaint, suit could not be tried by Judge, Small Causes Court and the same was liable to be dismissed for the reasons disclosed in the application, which has been appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

A reply was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 to the aforesaid application of the petitioner.

District Judge, Ghaziabad has decieded issue nos. 12 and 13 against the petitioner by the impugned order holding that the Judge Small Causes Court has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and that the question as to whether respondent no. 4 is a tenant or an unauthorized occupant can be decided only after evidence is led by the parties.

The question as to whether a person is tenant or an unauthorized occupant being a question of fact, can be decided only after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties. In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in deciding both the issues regarding jurisdiction of Small Causes Court and determination of question of of fact as to whether a person is tenant or unauthorized occupant. .  Suffice it to say that cause of action will arise for challenging the ultimate order to be passed by the Court below before the appropriate Court only when the suit is finally decided.  

No other point has been argued.

It is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdictionHowever, in the interest of justice, the concerned Court below is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order by either of the parties.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 4th October, 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.