Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 43 (HP)

Dharam Pal Sharda v. State of H. P.

2014-01-07

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-8 i.e. order dated 07-10-2010. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities not to be implement Annexure P-8 i.e. order dated 07-10-2010. (iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the case at hand. (iv) Direct the Respondent authorities to pay the cost of the petition. (v) Such other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Impugned order dated 7.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) reads as under:- “Case called. Ld. Counsel for petitioner and respondent present. The application for calling witnesses of respondent is disallowed as it has no relevance with present proceedings. The application for redemption of mortgage is to be decided on the facts of record of right and any other order of competent court/authority debarring this redemption. It is a mere delaying tactics. The application is disallowed and case is fixed for documentary evidences and statement of respondent on 25/10/10. No further opportunity shall be afforded to the respondent. To come up on 25/10/10.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I see no reason to interfere in the present petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The authority below rightly concluded that proceedings, being summary in nature, are required to be decided on the basis of material on record. Apparently, petitioner was trying to delay the proceedings, which fact stands rightly recorded by the authority below. 4. Plea of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the authority to entertain the petition is factually incorrect, which fact is evident from the material placed on record by the parties and more particularly para-6 of the response filed by Sh. Brij Mohan. 5. As such, it cannot be said that there is any illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of record warranting any interference by this Court. Petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.