Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHAKAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dhakan Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 77800 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7988 (22 December 2005)

 

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

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to give any legal assistance. The petition is dismissed for want of legal assistance. More so, the petition does not make any sense that the land claimed by the petitioner, which has been allotted to him, has been allotted to some body else. However, the quashing of the order of allotment is not under challenge. Even clause (i) of the prayer for handing over the possession of pond earlier allotted to the petitioner and subsequently allotted to some body else is misconceived. However, in the (ii) clause of the prayer a mention has been made by the petitioner in respect of the same land that the respondents should not interfere in the possession of the petitioner. The petition does not make any sense and the pleadings are not only vague but are also misconceived and untenable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619, observed as under:-

"Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession, as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, yet al. They do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system" (Emphasis added).

In view of the above, filing this kind of petition amounts to Criminal contempt and it is a fit case where we should issue notice for contempt but as this Court is already over burdened, we do not do so. However, we deprecate filing of such a petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 22.12.2005

Sharma/77800


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.