High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Deota Deen v. U.P. Co-Operative Village Development Bank Ltd. & Another - WRIT - C No. 27491 of 2007  RD-AH 10616 (18 June 2007)
Court No. 45
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27491 of 2007
Deota Deen................... Petitioner
U.P. Cooperative Village Development Bank Ltd. Soraon, Allahabad and another...................... Respondents
Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed, interalia, seeking quashing of the recovery proceedings including auction sale scheduled to take place on 27.6.2007.
I have heard Shri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.S. Yadav holding brief for Shri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 and 2, and perused the record.
From a perusal of the facts stated in the Writ Petition, it is evident that in regard to the same recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed before this Court a Writ Petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34840 of 2006, Deota Deen Vs. U.P. Cooperative Village Development Bank Ltd. and another.
The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 7.7.2006 with various directions.
Copy of the said order dated 7.7.2006 has been filed as Annexure-9 to the present Writ Petition.
From a perusal of the averments made in paragraphs 10,16 and 17 of the present Writ Petition, it appears that the last deposit was made by the petitioner on 31.5.2006,i.e., prior to the aforesaid order dated 7.7.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34840 of 2006. There is no averment in the present Writ Petition regarding any deposit made pursuant to the directions given in the said order dated 7.7.2006.
Shri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to the notice of the Court any averment/ material in the present Writ Petition regarding compliance of various directions given in the said order dated 7.7.2006.
Evidently, therefore, the directions given in the said order dated 7.7.2006 have not been complied with.
Hence, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Even otherwise, the present Writ Petition impugns the same recovery proceedings as were impugned in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34840 of 2006, and thus, the present Writ Petition is based substantially on the same cause of action. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.
In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.