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


Rajesh Kumar Dubey v. Upper District Judge Varanasi And Others - WRIT - A No. 56623 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17646 (12 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).


   Court no. 7                                                        

         Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56623 of 2006

Rajesh Kumar Dubey            versus             Addl. District Judge,

                                                                     Varanasi and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 16.2.2005, 23.3.2005 and 26.9.2006 (Annexures-2 and 6 to the writ petition). It has further been prayed that respondent no.1, Addl. District Judge, First Varansai be directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine respondent no.2's witness and he may also be permitted to produce his evidence on the date fixed by this Court.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is tenant on a portion of the second floor of disputed house no. D48/139 consisting of one room situate at Hanuman Katra Mohalla Mishir Pokhra Varanasi on monthly rent of Rs.50/- per month. Respondent no.2 filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation.

It is stated that 16.2.2005 was fixed for cross-examination of witness of plaintiff in the aforesaid suit but on that date, counsel for the petitioner in the court below was not prepared to cross-examine the witness he moved an application for adjournment which was rejected on the same day i.e. 16.2.2005. Then the petitioner moved an application for recall of the order dated 16.2.2005 on 22.2.2005. Thereupon 23.2.2006 was fixed. The application of the petitioner-dated 22.2.2005 was rejected  vide order dated 23.3.2005 and the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Thereafter the petitioner again moved an application for recall of the order dated 23.3.2005 which too was rejected vide order dated 26.9.2006 and 14.10.2006 has been fixed for final hearing.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 16.2.2005,23.3.2005 and 26.9.2006 the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

By order dated 16.2.2005 the adjournment application of the petitioner was rejected. The order dated 16.2.2005 of the court below is as under:-

    "  16-2-2005 iqdkj ij nksuks Ik{kksa ds vf/koDrk x.k mifLFkr gS A

  izkFkZuk Ik= isij ua0 50 x izfroknh fn;k x;k A izfroknh dks ;g vk[;k ¿8�? LFkxu  izkFkZuk Ik= fn;k gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds okn fof/k pUnzizdk'k cuke ftyk tt] cjsyh 2004 ¿2�? ,0MCyw0lh0 ist&1156 o 'ks[k [kyhTtek cuke 'ks[k vrhmytk 2004 ¿55�? ,0,y0vkj0 iw"B&638 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ldqZyj ua0 2596@2004 fnukad 19&2&2004  vuqlkj 3 ls vf/kd LFkxu vuqeU; ugha gS A vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mijksDr okn fof/k;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vkosnd dk ;g izkFkZuk Ik= la?kk;Z gh ugha gS A vr% bls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A xokg mifLFkr gS amlls ftjg ugha dh xbZ vr% mls ftjg dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k A oknh us viuh lk{; lekIr ?kksf"kr fnuakd 23&3&85 dks lk{; izfroknh o ftjg izfroknh dh izLrqr gksa A^^"

By order dated 23.3.2005 the application dated 22.2.2005 of the petitioner was rejected and the right of the petitioner to produce his evidence was closed. The order dated 23.3.2005 is as under:-

           " iqdkj ij nksuks Ik{kksa ds vf/koDrk x.k mifLFkr gSA foi{kh us LFkxu izkFkZuki= 54 ?k fn;k gSaA lquk x;k A ;g mldk ekSdk LFkxu izkFkZuki= gS vkns'k fnukad 16&2&2005 dze esa ;g izkFkZuki= laa?kk;Z u gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A izkFkZuki= 52x vkns'k fnukad 16&2&2005 dks fjdky djus ds fy, gS vkns'k fnukad 16&2&2005 esa Li"V #Ik ls ;g dg fn;k x;k Fkk fd foi{kh dh vksj ls LFkxu vuqeU; ugha gS vr% mldk izkFkZuki= Hkh la?kk;Z ugha gS vr% mls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A

    foi{kh  us dksbZ lk{; ugha fn;k vr% mlds lk{; dk volj lekIrA fnukad 18&5&2005 dks cgl ds fy, is'k gks A ^^

By order dated 26.9.2006 the recall application (paper nos. 58Ga and 55Ga) of the petitioner was rejected by the Court below after taking into consideration the orders dated 16.2.2005 and 23.3.2005  and held that the aforesaid application is  misuse of process of law, as such the Court below rejected the recall application and directed that the case  to be  listed on 14.10.2006 for hearing. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.9.2006 is as under:-

^^&&&& izdj.k oknh dh lk{; eas py jgk Fkk ftlesa 50?k izkFkZuk Ik= bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k fd eqdnek mijksDr esa vkt vf/koDrk fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS vr% de ls de 2 ekg dh frfFk QkbZy eqvk;uk vkfn dh rS;kjh gsrq fn;k tkuk vko';d gS vr% rS;kjh gsrq nks ekg dk le; fn;k x;k A ;g izfroknh dk vkBok LFkxui= Fkk A ftlds lEcU/k esa rRdkyhu esjs iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds }kjk Li"V #Ik ls ;g ikrs gq, fd izfroknh dk vkBok LFkxu izkFkZuki= gS vkSj Li"V #Ik ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds okn fof/k pUnz izdk'k cuke ftyk tt] cjsyh 2004 ¿2�? ,0MCyw0lh0 ist&1156 o 'ks[k [kyhTtek cuke 'ks[k vrhmytk 2004 ¿55�? ,0,y0vkj0 iw"B&638 ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds ldqZyj ua0 2596@2004 fnukad 19&2&2004 ds vuqlkj 3 ls vf/kd LFkxu vuqeU; ugha gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mijksDr  fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dks  n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vkosnd dk ;g izkFkZuk Ik= la?kk;Z  u ikrs gq, esjs iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk 50 ?k izkFkZuki= [kkfjt fd;k x;k A oknh dk xokg mifLFkr Fkk A blls dksbZ ftjg ugha dh xbZ A vr%ftjg dk volj lekIr fd;k x;k A rnksijkUr oknh us Hkh viuh lk{; lekIr ?kksf"kr dj nhA ftlds izdj.k fnukad 23&3&2005 dks lk{; izfroknh gsrq fu;r fd;k x;k A

bl njfe;ku fnukad 22-2-2005 dks izkFkZuki= 52 x vkns'k fnukafdr 16-2-2005 dks fjdky djus ds  fy;s izLrqr fd;k x;k A ftls '''kiFk Ik= 53 x ds ek/;e ls lefFkZr fd;k x;k A ftl izkFkZuki= ij fu;r frfFk dks is'k gksus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k A iqu%izfroknh us 54?k LFkxu fn;k fd muds vf/koDrk dh rfc;r [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k c;ku rS;kj ugha gks ldk gSS vr%izfroknh dks c;ku nkf[ky djus gsrq ,d ekSdk fn;k tk;sA bl izkFkZuki= ds lanHkZ esa fnukad 23-3-2005 dks esjs iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk Ik{kx.k dks lquk x;k vkSj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k fd ;g izfroknh dk ukSok LFkxu izkFkZuki= gS vkSj vkns'k fnukad 16-2-2005 ds dze esa ;g izkFkZuki= la?kk;Z u gkssus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS A blesa ;g Hkh mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k fd vkns'k fnukafdr 16-2-2005 esa Li"V #Ik ls ;g dg fn;k x;k fd foi{kh dks vkSj LFkxu vuqeU; ugha gS A vr% ;g izkFkZuki= Hkh l?kk;Z ugha gS A foi{kh ds }kjk dksbzZ lk{; izLrqr u fd;s tkus dh n'kk esa mldh lk{; dk volj lekIr djrs gq, vxyh frfFk 18-5-2005 fu;r dh xbZ A vkns'k Ik= ij izfroknh@izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls Hkh gLrk{kj cuk;s x;s gS tks Li"V gS iqu%fnukad 18-5-2005 dks izkFkZuki= 57x vkns'k fnukad 23-3-2005 dks fjdky djus gsrq fn;k x;k vkSj blh dze esa 58 x o 55x izLrqr fd;k x;k ftl ij vkifRr Hkh nh xbZ A ftuds fuLrkj.k gsrq vkt izdj.k lqph c) gS A vkifRr dkxr la[;k 56 x gS tks oknh dh vksj ls nkf[ky gS ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;kW izdV djrh gS fd ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; us mijksDr mf)r fof/k O;oLFkk ,oa ldqZyj ysVj bl O;oLFkk dks Lfkkfir djrs gS fd Ik{kdkj 3 ls T;knk LFkxu ysus ds fy;s vf/kd`r ugha gS vkSj bl rF; dk mYys[k fnukad 16-2-2005 ds vkns'k esa gS blds mijkUr Hkh izfroknh ds }kjk LFkxu izkIr djus gsrq cjkcj iz;kl fd;s x;s A ;g okn lu~ 2000 ls yfEcr py jgk gS vkSj ,sls Lrj ij izfroknh ds }kjk vius vf/koDrk cnydj ekeys dh foyfEcr djus dk iz;kl djuk mldh lnHkkouk gS foijhr gS izkFkZuki= 58x o 55 x esasa ,sls fof/kd rF;ksa dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS ftuds dkj.k ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; dh mijksDr mf)r O;oLFkk ,oa ldqZyj ds izdj.k dh vuns[kh dh tk ldsA^^  

        It appears from the aforesaid order that the petitioner has not only been taking dates by moving adjournment applications on one ground or the other but is delaying the disposal of the case by filing frivolous application. The adjournment sought by the petitioner was not bonafide as has been held by the Court below and the facts in this regard have also been detailed in the aforesaid impugned order.  There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the court below, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to enable him to give evidence on his behalf. It appears from the findings of the Court below that the witness was present in the court but petitioner has refused to cross-examine him.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is permitted to give his evidence in the court below on the next date on payment of Rs.7500/- cost. No further opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to give his evidence and cost of Rs.75,00/- is to be paid to the counsel for  respondent no.2 for payment to him.

Dated 12.10.2006





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.