Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1308 (ALL)

Muzaffar Ali v. IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut

2014-04-23

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 2. Heard. 3. Cause shown for delay in filing recall/restoration application is sufficient. 4. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned. 5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed. Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for recall of order dated 15.7.2008 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. Reason shown for non appearance have been explained satisfactorily. The application is allowed. Order dated 15.7.2008 is hereby recalled. Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Order dated 15.07.2008 having been recalled vide order of date passed on restoration application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. This is tenant's petition, who has lost in both the Courts below, inasmuch as, application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") has been allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 5.8.1992, which has been affirmed by lower appellate court vide judgment dated 24.01.1994 by dismissing appeal of petitioner. 4. The concurrent findings recorded by Courts below could not be shown perverse or incorrect in any manner. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The scope of judicial review under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 5. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 6. Dismiss. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.