Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 867 (ALL)

Laxmi Narain Sahu v. Judge, S. C. C. , Jhansi

2010-03-16

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The respondent landlord filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P.Act No.13 of 1972 wherein the petitioner tenant preferred his objection and after the parties had led their evidence, the release application was allowed by an exhaustive and detailed order dated 18th February 2009 directing the petitioner tenant to vacate the premises within a month. Instead of challenging the said order, the petitioner tenant made an application for review dated 7th March 2009 on the ground that the Prescribed Authority has not correctly decided the release application. 3. After the parties had filed their objections, the review application was fixed for arguments on 5.12.2009 but an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that his counsel is busy in the High Court. The adjourment was opposed especially on the ground of Order 17 Rule 2 (c) C.P.C.The Court had no other option but to reject the adjournment. Thereafter it heard the review application which was also rejected on merits. Yet again an application for recall of the order dated 5.12.2009 was filed which has also been rejected vide order dated 16.1.2010. Both these orders are under challenge in this petition. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Court below should have adjourned the hearing of the review application and both the orders are exparte and vitiated. 5. It is evident from the record that the adjournment application was rejected on objection raised by the respondent landlord and keeping in mind the provision of Order 17 Rule 2 (c) C.P.C. Proviso (c)? of Order 17 provides as under : "(2) Costs of adjournment ........ Provided that,........... (a)............. (b).............. (c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground of adjournment." 6. It is admitted to the petitioner that the case was fixed for hearing of the review application on 5.12.2009 and the only ground for adjournment was that the counsel was engaged in another matter in the High Court, however, the application was not supported by an affidavit. Under clause (c) of Rule 2, the engagement of a counsel in another Court cannot be a ground for adjournment. Therefore, the Court was fully justified in rejecting the adjournment application. Under clause (c) of Rule 2, the engagement of a counsel in another Court cannot be a ground for adjournment. Therefore, the Court was fully justified in rejecting the adjournment application. Thereafter the Court considered the review application and rejected it on merits. A perusal of the review application itself shows that the grounds mentioned therein could be taken as grounds in appeal but such grounds cannot be entertained for review of an order passed on merits after hearing the parties. Thus, the Court was justified in rejecting the review application on merits. It is also evident that the application for recall was also not supported by an affidavit and the Court after considering the entire facts has rightly rejected the application to recall the aforesaid orders. 7. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. Rejected.