Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 442 (ALL)

Radha Shukla v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur

1987-04-13

V.K.KHANNA

body1987
JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This writ petition has been filed against an order of the VII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur dated 27-5-1985 on an application (30 Ga 2) seeking permission to cross-examine Sri T.N. Gupta, Engineer who had filed his report regarding the condition of the building in dispute in the Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition has relied on the earlier order passed by the III District Judge, Kanpur dated 18-1-1984 holding that such a prayer made by the parties had been granted by the court below. 3. At the very out-set it may be mentioned that at the admission stage the contesting respondent put in appearance through Smt. Poonam Srivastava, Advocate. The parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits. The writ petition is thus being decided finally in accordance with the rules of the Court. 4. The only question involved in the appeal which is pending before the court below is regarding the applicability of Section 21 (1)(b)of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The reports of the Experts have been filed for the purposes of showing the condition of the building as to whether it is in a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction. The application under Section 21 has been filed in the year 1978 and is pending decision for the last about 9 years. Admittedly the parties have filed reports of the experts. The property is situated at a place where the appellate court will be deciding the appeal. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that in case the court for the purposes of properly under standing the opinion of the experts feel that a local inspection of the property in dispute would help him in the proper adjudication of the case, the appellate court will make a local inspection after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties in the appeal. The order passed by the VII Addl. District Judge on 27-5-85, in my opinion, does not require any further modification except to the extent indicated above. 5. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is discharged. 6. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for parties with in three days on payment of usual charges.