CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Raja Ram and Another vs Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 February 2012 · Citation: (2012) 02 AHC CK 0157

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dilip Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 — Section 25
CASE NUMBER
Writ - A No. - 8148 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 374 words

Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners had instituted SCC Suit No. 12 of 2002 which was decreed on 16th November, 2006. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur, who was arrayed as defendant in the suit, filed a Revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 before the High Court which was numbered as Civil Revision Defective No. 71 of 2007. During the pendency of the Civil Revision, proceedings were initiated for execution of the decree and against an order passed by the Executing Court, Writ Petition No. 47586 of 2007 was filed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur.

2.

Both the Civil Revision and the Writ Petition were decided by a common judgment and order dated 27th August, 2009. The Revision was dismissed and the writ petition was disposed of observing that as the School was being run in the building in dispute, eviction decree shall not be executed till 31st June, 2010.

3.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till date, despite the aforesaid direction of the High Court, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur has not vacated the premises and objections are being raised in the execution proceedings.

4.

Once the Civil Revision filed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur was dismissed and the writ petition filed against an order passed in Execution Case was disposed of with the observation that the eviction decree shall not be executed upto 31st June, 2010, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur should have vacated the premises by 31st June, 2010 but he did not do so.

5.

Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that some time may be given to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur to vacate the premises.

6.

List this petition on 1st March, 2012 by which time, possession of the premises shall be handed over by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur to the decree holders. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur shall file an affidavit to this effect but in case the possession is not handed over, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Saharanpur shall appear before the Court on 1st March, 2012 to explain why possession of the premises has not been handed over to the decree holders.