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


Rajeev Kumar v. District Judge, Kannauj And Others - WRIT - A No. 60738 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18885 (8 November 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.60738 of 2006

Rajeev Kumar Vs. District Judge, Kannauj and others


Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-caveator and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the tenant, challenging the impugned orders dated 10,10.2006 and 18.10.2006 (annexures-4 & 6 respectively to the writ). The trial Court by its impugned order directed that the application no.46-C dated 25.4.2006 filed by the petitioner to the extent that as the premises in question had fallen down, therefore, the proceedings under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 having lost its relevance was not liable to be rejected. The said application was disposed off by the trial Court with the direction that the same had been decided on merit along with the Prescribed Authority Suit. The petitioner thereafter took no action and the case under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act No.13 of 1972 was listed for final arguments. The petitioner on 10.10.2006 appeared before the trial Court and made an oral submission that his application 46-C had not been disposed off. On this submission, the trial Court orally ordered that the said application 46-C had already been decided at an early date and therefore, it did not require to be decided again. The revisional Court vide its impugned order dated 18.10.2006 has also held that since the application no.46-C dated 25.4.2006 has already been decided, therefore, there was no need to reiterate the same that no fresh application had been filed nor any fresh ground had been raised, more so, there was already a direction issued by the High Court that the case under Section 21 (1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 be decided expeditiously. With these observations, the revisional Court dismissed the revision.

Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the photocopy of the final order passed by this Court dated 30.1.2006 in Writ Petition No.5412 of 2006 by which the Court below had been directed to dispose off the said application expeditiously. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the arguments have been concluded and the Judgment is reserved which is fixed for delivery on 9.11.2006.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I do not find any illegality or perversity has been committed while passing the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to raise any other ground in support of the writ petition. It is also found that he has already filed a Civil Suit No.513 of 2004 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Sarvesh Kumar and others before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kannauj in respect with the disposal of an application under Section 29 (2) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. This writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

November 8, 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.