Mohan Lal Gupta vs Ajai Singhal

S.P. Mehrotra. J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , inter alia, praying for quashing the orders dated 1111 2003 and 13112003 (Annexure Nos. 4 and 5, respectively to the Writ Petition) passed by the Learned Additional District Judge , Court No. 13, Meerut (Appellate, Authority) .

The dispute relates to a shop situated in Premises bearing old number 562, 563, 564 and new number 3, Ward No. 19 Swamipada, Meerut, 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 writ petition and the Annexure thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21(l)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short �the Act�) against the petitioner for release of the disputed shop. The said release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 20 of 1999. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 188 2000 (Annexure No. 2 to Writ Petition), the said release application filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act in respect of the disputed shop was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut.

Thereupon, it appears that the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000, an application dated 5112003 (paper No. 59 Ga) was filed on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, praying for issuance of commission to Amin to make inspection of the disputed shop. Copy of the said application dated 5112003 (paper No. 59 Ga) has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that by the impugned order dated 1111 2003, the said application dated 5112003 (paper No. 59 Ga) filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. Copy of the said order dated 11112003 passed on the said application dated 511 2003 (paper No. 59 Ga) has been filed as part of Annexure No. 4 to the writ Petition.

Thereafter, it appears that an application (paper No. 63 Ga2) was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000, inter alia, praying for being granted 15 days'' time for approaching this Court for obtaining the stay order, and further praying for extending the interim order in the said Appeal till the next date.

By the order dated 13112003 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition) passed on the said application (Paper No. 63 Ga2), the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut (Appellate Authority) adjourned the hearing of the said Appeal to 28112003, but declined to extend the interim order operative in the said Appeal.

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

I have heard Sri Annurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the caveatorrespondent and perused the record.

From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that the impugned order dated 11112003 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the said application (paper No. 59 Ga), is an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 11 112003, in case, the final decision goes against the petitioner in the said Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000, and the petitioner challenges such final decision before this Court.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 11112003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order dated 11112003 at this stage. Hence, the Writ Petition, in so far as the said order dated 11 112003 is concerned, is dismissed subject to the observations made above.

Sri Annurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that by the order dated 13112003 passed on the application (paper No. 63 Ga2) filed on the behalf of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has allowed the prayer for grant of time for approaching this Court, but the Appellate Authority has declined to extend the interim order which has remained in operation in the said Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000. It is further submitted by Sri Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no intention of delaying the disposal of the said Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000. It is further submitted by Sri Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph No. 23 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has undertaken to cooperate in disposal of the Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000 without taking any unnecessary adjournment.

During the course of argument, Sri Khannn, learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that the petitioner would not seek any unnecessary or avoidable adjournment in the said Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000 on 28112003 which is the date fixed for hearing of the Appeal, or thereafter.

Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority was justified in declining to extend the interim order while passing the impugned order dated 13112003.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the assurance given by Sri Annurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be in the interest of justice to modify the impugned order dated 13112003 without going into the question as to whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority was justified in refusing to extend the interim order passed in the said Appeal.

Accordingly, it is directed that the parties will appear before the Appellate Authority on 28112003. The Appellate Authority will hear the said Appeal No. 235 of 2000 and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from 28112003. It is further directed that no unneccessary or avoidable adjournment will be granted to any of the parties.

The eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop will remain stayed till the disposal of the said Appeal No. 235 of 2000. Order dated 13112003 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition) is modified to the extent indicated above.

The Writ Petition as regards the order dated 13112003 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition), is disposed of accordingly.