Dismissed

Ramanand Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Yadav and 7 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023A227/7081/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a fresh application for the same relief previously rejected by the trial court, holding it non-maintainable, and directed the trial court to decide the pending rent case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Trial court directed to decide Rent Case No. 73 of 2015 expeditiously within three months.

Ramanand Dixit Vs Ajay Kumar Yadav and 7… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169488

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7081 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramanand Dixit Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Yadav And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Rai,Prajyot Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The present petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner challenging the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar on the application No. 107Ga filed by the petitioners in Rent Case No. 73 of 2015 (Ajay Kumar vs. Ramanand Dixit).

¶7

By the said order, the application No.107Ga filed by the defendant-petitioner (tenant) was rejected. The aforesaid application was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with the following relief:-

¶8

" अतएवशशममनजशससपमररनमहहककउपररककमररकसललएएडवरकसटकममशनरकरमनरयमककरकस मनरम र रतअवलरममआखरमतलबकरनसकमआदसशपमररतकरनसककककपमकरस।महमनदरमहरगश। "

¶9

On 15.02.2023 an objection was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the aforesaid application. Apart from the various objections, one of the objection has been taken in the aforesaid application that for the same relief the petitioner earlier filed an application in the same proceedings under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Application No. 99 filed on 24.05.2022. In the said application, the following relief was sought for:-

¶10

" अततशशममनजशससउपररककमररहसतयमकसशअलरवकममहरदरकरएडवरकसटकममशनरमनरयककर मदरमजमवसजरममकसपरजमकरवमदशदमरमकरमरसगरसनरसमनममरणरककबमबतसपषआखरममरनकशम सकसलशबनमकरममननशरनरमरमलरदमरममनरम र रतमतलरकसअनदरपसतयतकरस।शशममनजशककमहमन दरमहरगश। "

¶11

The aforesaid application namely Application No.99 was rejected by the courts below vide its judgment and order dated 19.09.2022 with the following findings:-

¶12

" रमचशदमरमपसतयतवमदवमदगसतससपलतससमवपकशगणकसमकरमरसदमरशवमलसभमगकररमचशकसपकमम ररलशज़करनसहसतयदमलखलमकरमगरमहह। मवपकशदमरमअपनसउपररकपमररनमपतकसममधरमससवमदगसत ससपलतकससमबनरममपमररनमपतममवमणरतआरमररपरजरररसकममशरमनरयककरआखरममसगमरसजमनसकक पमररनमककगरशहह। रमचशदमरममवपकशकसउपररकपमररनमपतममरहआपलतककगरशहहमकमवपकशकम पमररनमपतमनरसतमकरमजमए।मवपकशदमरमपसतयतकमशशनपमररनमपतमममलसकरमवलममबतकरनसकस आशरससमदरमगरमपतशतहरतमहह। ऐसमपतशतहरतमहहमकमवपकशउपररककमशशनपमररनमपतकस ममधरमससशमकरससकललतकरमनमचमहरहमहह। कममशरररपरटरकसममधरमसससमकरससकललतकरनसकक अनयममतनहहदशजमसकतश , रमदमवपकशकरईतथरनरमरमलरकसससजमनममलमनमचमहतमहहतरउसकस समबनरममवहसमकरदमलखलकरसकतमहह।अततमममलसकसतथरएवसपररमसरमतररकरदमषगतरखतस हहएमवपकशदमरमपसतयतपमररनमपतकमगजससखरम - 99 असवशकमरमकरसजमनसररगरहह।

¶13

. आदसश

¶14

मवपकशदमरमपसतयतपमररनमपतकमगज़ससखरम - 99 असवशकमरमकरमजमतमहह। तदनयसमरआपलत मनसतमररतककजमतशहह। पतमवलशवमसतसअमगमकमररवमहशमदनमसक - 18.10.2022 करपसशहर। "

¶15

The order dated 19.09.2022 has become final between the parties. After the aforesaid application was rejected, a fresh application was filed being paper No. 107Ga with the prayer as quoted above. The said application was rejected on the ground that there is no such provisions contained under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) to collect the evidence through a report of Advocate Commissioner. The operative portion of the order dated 24.03.2023 is read as follows:-

¶16

" सयनमतरमपतमवलशकमअवलरकनमकरम।

¶17

मवपकशदमरमपमररनमपतपसतयतकरजवमबदमवसममबढ़मरसगरसनरसतथरऔरउनहशतथररकरसममबतकरनस कसललएवमदशदमरममकरसगरसनरसमनममरणरवपहलसससमसरतपयरमनसमनममरणरवमकरमरसदमरशवमलसपररसरसस पयरमनसमनममरणरकसमधरहहएनरसमनममरणरउनककउपमसरतकसबमरसममआखरमतलबमकरसजमनसहसतय एडवरकसटकममशरकरमनरयकमकरसजमनसककपमररनमककगरशहह।पतमवलशकसअवलरकनससमवमदतहरतम हहमकमवपकशदमरमकमशशनकसममधरमससअपनसपकममसमकरएकमततकरनसहसतयपमररनमपतपसतयतमकरम

¶18

गरमहह।पतमवलशकसअवलरकनससरहभशमवमदतहहककपसतयतवमदरसनटकसससससमबसलरतहह , लजससस ससमछपपमकरमकमपमवरमनहहतरमरमटरममचकमममसभशसमकरजररएशपरपतदमलखलकरनसकम पमवरमनहह।पतमवलशसमकरकससतरपरहहतरममवपकशदमरमममतमवलसबकमररतकरनसहसतयपमररनमपत पसतयतमकरमजमनमपतशतहरतमहह।रमदमवपकशकरईतथरनरमरमलरकसससजमनममलमनमचमहतमहहतर वहसवरसकससमकरकसममधरमससपसतयतकरसकतमहहतरमपसतयतरममचकमममममननशरउचचनरमरमलर , इलमहमबमददमरमशशघमनसतमरणहसतयमदशममनदरशभशजमरशमकरसगरसहह।अततसमसततथररएवस पररमसरमतररकरदमषगतरखतसहहएमवपकशदमरमपसतयतपमररनमपतख़मररजमकरसजमनसररगरहह।

¶19

. आदसश

¶20

मवपकशदमरमपसतयतपमररनमपत 107 गमनरसतमकरसजमतमहह। तदनयसमरआपलत 111 गमनसतमररत। पतमवलशवमसतसअमगमकमररवमहशमदनमसक 07.04.2023 करपसशहर। "

¶21

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

¶22

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that Application No. 107Ga was rightly filed even after the dismissal of the earlier application for the same relief.

¶23

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶24

From perusal of the record, it transpires that earlier application filed by the same petitioner in the same proceedings being Paper No. 99C dated 24.05.2022 was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 19.09.2022. Again for the same relief, a fresh application being Paper No.107Ga has been filed, was also rejected by the court below vide its order dated 24.03.2023.

¶25

After going through the facts as narrated above, the Court is of the opinion that once application filed for the same relief in the same proceedings has been rejected by the court below, the fresh application for the same relief is not maintainable. Hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Nothing has been brought on record in the present petition nor any arguments has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that how and in what manner the order passed by the court below which is under challenged is illegal. More specially when the earlier application for the same relief has been rejected.

¶27

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶28

It further reveals from perusal of the records that the case in question was filed in the year 2015. It is further stated in the order impugned that the directions has already been given by this Court to decide the proceedings of the case in question, expeditiously.

¶29

When a query has been raised by this Court to the counsel for the petitioner regarding the aforesaid petition, it is informed by him that he has no knowledge regarding any such order passed by this Court. Since the proceedings of the case namely Rent Case No. 73 of 2015 are pending before the court below namely Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar since 2015 and the case is at the evidence stage, the Court is of the opinion that court below be directed to decide the same, expeditiously.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below namely Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar is directed to decide the aforesaid case i.e., Rent Case No. 73 of 2015 (Ajay Kumar vs. Ramanand Dixit), most expeditiously and positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶31

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the copy of this order to the court concerned through District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by 14.09.2023.

¶32

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Swati

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramanand Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Yadav and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Yadav and 7 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

Chnadra Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Ji Lal Vs Randheer Singh and 5 Others

Smt. Asiya Vs Saidurrahman

Anil Takiyar Vs Smt. Reena Shukla

Sabuddin @ Shahabuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanchan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another