Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3663 (ALL)

Bholi Khanna v. Ashok Kumar Rastogi

2014-12-08

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 1.8.2013 and 8.10.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad in P.A.Case No. 6 of 2013 (Ashok Kumar Rastogi and others Vs. Bholi Khanna ). 3. Vide order dated 1.8.2013, the prescribed authority has closed the opportunity of filing written statement and directed to proceed exparte against the petitioner-defendant. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 8.10.2014, the petitioner's application seeking recall of the order dated 1.8.2013 has been rejected. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondents, herein, have filed P.A. Case No. 6 of 2013 (Ashok and others Vs. Bholi Khanna) under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop in dispute. In the aforesaid application, after issuing notice on number of dates, time was granted to the petitioner to file written statement but no written statement was filed even after imposing cost on several dates. The learned prescribed authority, vide order dated 1.8.2013, has closed the opportunity of the petitioner-defendant to file written statement and directed to proceed exparte. Seeking recall of this order, an application was filed, almost after one year, that too has been dismissed looking into the petitioner's hopeless conduct. 5. I do not find any error in the impugned orders as the petitioner has throughout been negligent in not doing the proper pairvi of the case but considering the facts that the petitioner's right to file written statement has been closed and the purpose of establishment of the Court is to impart substantial justice to the parties, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement, but simultaneously the inconvenience caused to the otherside cannot be ignored. 6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, four weeks' further time is allowed to the petitioner to file written statement before the prescribed authority on the payment of Rs. 5000/- cost upon the petitioner. In case, the petitioner files written statement within the aforesaid period along with bank draft of Rs. 6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, four weeks' further time is allowed to the petitioner to file written statement before the prescribed authority on the payment of Rs. 5000/- cost upon the petitioner. In case, the petitioner files written statement within the aforesaid period along with bank draft of Rs. 5000/- drawn in favour of the landlord respondent, the written statement be accepted and thereafter the case shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties, if possible within a period of six months from the date of filing of the written statement. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.