Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SULABH SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD., AGRA versus MANAGER, GANDHI ASHARAM, KHADI BHANDAR, AGRA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Sulabh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Agra v. Manager, Gandhi Asharam, Khadi Bhandar, Agra - WRIT - A No. 20116 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12114 (17 July 2007)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

   Court no. 7                                                        

               Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20116 of 2007

M/s Sulabh Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 23, Jaipur, House, Agra.

                                                                                      Petitioner

                                    versus

Manager Gandhi Asharam, Khadi Bhandar Johari Bazar,Agra.

                                                                                      Respondent

                                                                                                         

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

An application under Section 21(a)(b) of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of a portion of the building no 9 situate at Ajmer Road Oldest, 24, Adarsh Nagar (Municipal No. 33/81) Pratappura, Rakabganj, Ward, Agra under the tenancy of the respondent before the Prescribed Authority/ Addl. Civil Judge, Agra on the ground of his bonafide need was filed by the petitioner.      

The respondent filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations.

After appreciation of the documentary as well as oral evidence of both the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 29.11.2003 rejected the release application of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2003 the petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2004 before the Appellate Court.

During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner filed an amendment application in the release application which was allowed vide order dated 8.9.2006. The respondent also filed his Addl. written statement to the amendment. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for taking on record affidavit 21-C by which it was brought to the notice of the Court that incorrect and irrelevant facts had been stated in the written statement dated 15.9.2006 which was partly rejected vide order dated 21.3.2007 by the Additional District Judge, Court no.18 Agra which is as under:-

^^21-3-07 & & & 20x izkFkZuk i= vihykFkhZ }kjk bl vk'k; dk fn;k x;k gS fd izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fyf[kr dFku fnukad 15-9-2006 esa >wBh eux<+ar ,oa vizklafxd ckrsa dh x;h gSA vr% bl laca/k esa 'kiFk i= 21x i=koyh ij fy;k tk;A

eSaus mHk; i{kksa dks lquk rFkk vkifRr dk voyksdu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

la'kks/ku izkFkZuki= ij izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls mldk tcko izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlds laca/k esa vihykFkhZ us 21x 'kiFki= nsuk pkgrk gSA eSaus 'kiFki= dk voyksdu fd;kA Li"V gS fd 'kiFki= ds iSjk&1]6 o 7 Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA 'ks"k iSjk vfrfjDr lk{; ds :Ik esa gS tks Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA

rn~uqlkj izkFkZuki= Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA

vkns'k

1- izkFkZuki= &20x vkaf'kd :Ik ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

2- 'kiFki= 21x dk iSjk&1]6 vkSj 7 i=koyh ds vax gksaxsA blds vfrfjDr 'ks"k iSjk vLohd`r fd;s tkrs gSaA

3- i=koyh fnukad 4@4@07 dks okLrs lquokbZ izLrqr gksA

                                 g0 vLi"V

                        vij ftyk tt] d{k la- 18] vkxjkA**

The petition has come up against the aforesaid interlocutory order.

 After hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the view that this Court should not delve into the merits of the case at this stage as the appeal is still pending before the appellate Court and has not been decided finally.  Since this petition has been filed against order dated 21.3.2007 by which the application of the petitioner for taking on record affidavit 21-C was allowed accepting the averments made in paras 1,6 and 7of the affidavit and rejected the rest which is in the nature of evidence, the petitioner has a remedy of civil revision. Writ Petition against the order is not maintainable as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 17.7.2007

CPP/-

 

 


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.