Allowed

Manju Maheshwari and 4 Others v. Deepak Agrawal and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2021A227/4218/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging orders dismissing recall applications and a revision in a suit for ejectment. The Court found the defendants were delaying tactics. It set aside the impugned orders subject to a deposit of costs, directing the lower court to decide the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 19.7.2021 and 15.11.2021 set aside subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 50,000/- within 15 days; suit to be decided expeditiously.

Manju Maheshwari and 4 Others Vs Deepak Agrawal and 2… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4218 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Manju Maheshwari And 4 Others Respondent :- Deepak Agrawal And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.

¶6

By means of this petition, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 19.7.2021 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 08 Aligarh in SCC Revision No. 40 of 2017 (Smt Manju Maheshwari and others Vs Deepak Agrawal and another) as well as the order dated 15.11.20217 passed by the learned Addl. Judge Small Cause Courts Aligarh in SCC Suit No. 02 of 2013 (Deepak Agrawal and Another Vs Smt Manju Maheshwari and others).

¶7

It reveals that plaintiffs-respondents filed a SCC suit being no. 02 of 2013 against the defendants-petitioners for a decree of ejectment in their favour from the shop in question occupied by defendants-petitioners, which was proceeded ex-parte by the court below against the defendants-petitioners vide order dated 20.5.2014 on the ground that the service upon the defendants-petitioners through publication is sufficient. When the said proceedings came into knowledge, defendants-petitioners moved a recall application on 26.5.2016 (Paper No. 18Ga), which was allowed by the court below on 26.7.2016. It is further averred that on the next date i.e. on 24.10.2016 due to call made by Civil Bar Association, the defendants-petitioners could not appear and further the court below vide order dated 24.10.20216 directed to proceed ex-parte against the defendants-petitioners. It is further averred that when the said order came into knowledge of the defendants-petitioners, they

¶8

immediately filed a recall application (paper No. 27Ga) for recalling of the order dated 24.10.2016, which was again rejected vide order dated 24.7.2017 in default of the defendants-petitioners. It is further averred that defendants-petitioners further filed a recall application (Paper No. 31Ga) for recalling of the order dated 24.7.2017 and on the date of hearing i.e. on 15.11.2017, defendants-petitioners filed an adjournment application on his personal ground, which has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 15.11.2017. Thereafter, defendants-petitioners challenged the order dated 15.11.2017 in SCC Revision, and the revisional Court vide its order dated 19.7.2021 dismissed the revision. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

¶9

Order sheet reveals that the suit was instituted in the year 2013 and the same is pending since then and it appears that the defendants-petitioners are not interested in pursuing the case and are adopting delaying tactics as has been very fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners as also by learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners that the Court may set-aside the impugned order after imposing heavy cost on the defendants-petitioners so that the said suit is decided on merits after affording opportunities of hearing to all concerned.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submission made, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.7.2021 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 08 Aligarh in SCC Revision No. 40 of 2017 (Smt Manju Maheshwari and others Vs Deepak Agrawal and another) as well as the order dated 15.11.20217 passed by the learned Addl. Judge Small Cause Courts Aligarh in S.C.C. Suit No. 02 of 2013 (Deepak Agrawal and Another Vs Smt Manju Maheshwari and others) are hereby set aside subject to depositing of costs of Rs. 50,000/- by the petitioners/defendants within 15 days from today before the Court below. The court below is directed to make every endeavour to decide the said suit expeditiously, by

¶11

fixing short dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In case, the cost as said is not deposited within time, the court below would be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.10.2021 RavindraKSingh

Manju Maheshwari and 4 Others v. Deepak Agrawal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Maheshwari and 4 Others v. Deepak Agrawal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kadyan @ Manoj Katyan @ Manoj Kadhan Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Ahmad Vs Ishtiyaque Ahmad and 2 Others

Siddarth Azad Vs Raj Kumar Rawat

Shakilurrhman Vs Faiyyaz Ahmad

Yaminiraman Acharya Vs Mahesh Chand Agrawal

Sri Yaminiraman Acharya Vs Sri Dharmendra Kumar and Another