Umesh Chandra vs State of U.P.and others

S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the orders dated 28.4.1999, 10.5.2002 and 17.7.2003 (Annexures 4,6, and 8, respectively to the Writ Petition).

The dispute relates to two shops, the details whereof are given in the plaint of the suit referred to hereinafter.

From a perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that Hari Shanker (respondent no.2 herein) filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent, damages etc. against Ram Kishore (defendant no.1 in the suit and respondent no.3 herein) and Rameshwar Dayal (defendant no.2 in the suit and predecessorininterest of the petitioner herein). The said suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 6 of 1991.

It further appears that during the pendency of the said suit, the said Rameshwar Dayal (defendant no.2 in the suit and predecessorininterest of the petitioner herein) expired, and his heirs and legal representatives including Umesh Chandra (petitioner herein) were brought on record of the said suit.

It further appears that written statement dated 5.2.1997 was filed in the said suit. Copy of the said written statement has been filed as Annexure2 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that an application dated 12.2.1998 (paper no. 58/C2) was filed on behalf of the said defendants in the said suit, interalia, stating that the suit involved determination of question of title, and as such, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same; and that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Court. Copy of the said application dated 12.2.1998 (paper no. 58/C2) has been filed as Annexure3 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that by the order dated 28.4.1999, the said application dated 12.2.1998 (paper no. 58/C2) was rejected as not pressed. Copy of the said order dated 28.4.1999 has been filed as Annexure4 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that an application dated 1.3.2002 (paper no. 77/C) was filed on behalf of the defendants in the said suit, interalia, praying for recalling the said order dated 28.4.1999 whereby the said application No. 58/C2, was rejected. Copy of the said application dated 1.3.2002 (paper no. 77/C) has been filed as Annexure5 to the Writ Petition.

By the order dated 10.5.2002, the said application dated 1.3.2002 (paper no. 77/C) filed on behalf of the defendants in the said suit, was rejected. Copy of the said order dated 10.5.2002 has been filed as part of Annexure6 to the Writ Petition.

It further appears that against the said order dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure6 to the Writ Petition), the said Umesh Chandra (petitioner herein) and others filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The said revision was registered as SCC Revision No. 19 of 2002.

By the judgment and order dated 17.7.2003, the said SCC Revision No. 19 of 2002 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.1, Kannauj.

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

I have heard Shri R.U. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.

It is submitted by Shri Ansari that the impugned orders are illegal, and are liable to be quashed by this Court.

Having considered the submissions made by Shri Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself unable to accept the same.

As regards the order dated 28.4.1999 (Annexure4 to the Writ Petition), the Writ Petition against the same is highly belated, and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality in the said order dated 28.4.1999. The said order dated 28.4.1999, interalia, states as follows:

"..........................Counsel of the defdts did not press 58C2 Hence 58C2 is rejected as not pressed..........................."

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application No. 58/C2 had been rejected by the said order dated 28.4.1999 under misconception, cannot be accepted. It is further noteworthy that the application no. 77/C for recalling the said order dated 28.4.1999 was filed in March, 2002, i.e., after about 3 years of the passing of the said order dated 28.4.1999. In view of the said fact also, the submission made regarding any alleged misconception in passing the said order dated 28.4.1999, cannot be accepted.

As regards the order dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure6 to the Writ Petition) and the judgment and order dated 17.7.2003 (Annexure8 to the Writ Petition), it will be noticed that by the order dated 10.5.2002, the application dated 1.3.2002 (paper no. 77/C) filed on behalf of the defendants in the said suit for recalling the said order dated 28.4.1999, was rejected, while by the judgment and order dated 17.7.2003, the said SCC Revision No. 19 of 2002 filed against the said order dated 10.5.2002 was dismissed. Cogent and valid reasons have been given by the Courts below in passing the said orders. In my opinion, the said orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality or perversity calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No interference is, therefore, called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the said orders dated 10.5.2002 (Annexure6 to the Writ Petition) and 17.7.2003(Annexure8 to the Writ Petition).

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.