Bimla Devi and Ors. vs Akhilesh Kumar Goel

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 3010 2003 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar, on an application (paper No. 99 Ga) filed in P.A. case No. 13 of 1999.

From a perusal of the writ petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that Smt. Kunti Devi (predecessorininterest of the respondent) filed a release application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short �the Act�) for the release of the accommodation in question. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 13 of 1999.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said release application, the said Smt. Kunti Devi expired, and the respondent was substituted as the heir and legal representative of the said Smt. Kunti Devi.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said release application, an application dated 1692003 (paper No. 99 Ga) was filed on behalf of the petitioners for being permitted to crossexamine Akhilesh Kumar Goel (respondent herein) and his witnesses. Copy of the said application dated 1692003 (Paper No. 99 Ga) has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

It further appears that objections dated 2492003 (paper No. 100 Ga) were filed on behalf of the respondent against the said application dated 1692003 (Paper No. 99 Ga). Copy of the said objections dated 2492003 (Paper No. 100 Ga) has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

It further appears that by the impugned order dated 30102003 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ petition), the said application No. 99 Ga filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected.

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present Writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.

From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that the impugned order dated 30102003 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ petition) is an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the said P.A. case No. 13 of 1999. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge the said order dated 30102003 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ petition), in case the final decision in the said P.A. Case No. 13 of 1999 goes against the petitioners, and the petitioners challenge such final decision in Appeal under Section 22 of the Act.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the said impugned order dated 30102003 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ petition), I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.