Madan Lal vs Radhey Shyam

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 24th September, 2003 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Meerut (Appellate Authority).

The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop."

From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a release application u/s 21 (1) (a) of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 71 of 1993. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that the petitioner contested the said release application, and filed written statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that the said release application filed by the respondent has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority, whereupon the respondent filed appeal u/s 22 of the Act. The said appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1998.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1998, the petitioner filed an application dated 11.2.2003 (Paper No. 36-Ka), inter-alia, praying for being permitted to make amendment in his aforesaid written statement. Copy of the said application dated 11.2.2003 (Paper No. 36-Ka) has been filed as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that objections (Paper No. 37-Ga-2) were filed on behalf of the respondent against the said application (Paper No. 36 Ka).

If further appears that the petitioner filed another application (Paper No. 39-Ga 2), inter-alia, praying for the disposal of the said amendment application dated 11.2.2003 (Paper No. 36-Ka).

It further appears that objections (Paper No. 40-Ga) were filed on behalf of the respondent against the said application (Paper No. 39-Ga 2).

By the impugned order dated 24.9.2003 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition), the Appellate Authority rejected the said applications (Paper Nos. 36-Ka and 39-Ga 2) filed by the petitioner in the said Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1998.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

From the above narration of the facts, it is evident that the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003 has been passed by the Appellate Authority on the aforementioned applications (Paper Nos. 36-Ka and 39-Ga 2) filed during the pendency of the said Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1998, and the said impugned order is an interlocutory order.

It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said impugned order dated 24th September, 2003, in case, the final decision in the said Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1998 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges such final decision before this Court.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 24th September, 2003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.