Disposed

Jagdish Sharma v. Additional District Judge and Another

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2018A227/2780/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 directing the Additional District Judge to finally dispose of SCC Suit No. 2 of 2016 within ten months without granting unnecessary adjournments, citing excessive delays and frivolous requests.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Judge to dispose of Suit No. 2 of 2016 within ten months without unnecessary adjournments.

Jagdish Sharma Vs Additional District Judge… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2780 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jagdish Sharma Respondent :- Additional District Judge And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Harpreet Singh Bedi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the Additional District Judge, Court No. XI, Agra to finally dispose of SCC Suit No. 2 of 2016 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/landlord is the owner of a shop through sale deed dated 23.08.1997 and he filed SCC Suit No.2 of 2016 after due notice regarding arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant. There were some objections relating to inadequate court fee which was being resolved and regular number was allotted on 05.01.2016 to the said suit. The tenant/respondent avoided service for a long time and only on 21.03.2016, service was deemed sufficient on the tenant/respondents. Again, adjournments were sought and the learned Court below on 29.09.2016 decided to proceed ex parte against the tenant. This order was later on recalled on 08.12.2016. An application under section 23 was moved by the tenant/respondent and also an application for impleadment was moved by Gopal Sharma.

¶7

A perusal of the ordersheet would show that the defendant/tenant as well as Gopal Sharma who has not yet been impleaded have been seeking adjournment on various dates i.e. 28.303.2017, 06.07.2017, 16.08.2017, 29.08.2017, 26.08.2017, 10.11.2017, 30.11.2017, 12.01.2018, 22.01.2018, 06.02.2018 and 09.03.2018. On some dates, the Court itself was not in session whereas at others, the respondents have been seeking adjournments on frivolous grounds.

¶8

It is the case of the landlord/petitioner that due to pendency of the SCC suit, the tenant/respondent is enjoying the tenanted premises whereas the landlord is suffering.

¶9

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the learned Court below to consider and decide the pending SCC Suit No.2 of 2016 pending since 2015 before

¶10

him in accordance with law within a period of ten months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶11

Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Madhurima

Jagdish Sharma v. Additional District Judge and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Sharma v. Additional District Judge and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jai Karan Singh Vs Smt. Usha Singh Chauhan

Smt. Zahida Begum Vs Additional District Judge Court No 8,KANPUR Nagar and Another

Kanchan Dubey Vs Additional District Judge Allahabad and 2 Others

Jaidev Chaturvedi and Another Vs Nizam and 3 Others

Jagdish Sharma Vs Additional District Judge and Another