Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1793 (ALL)

RAVI BALA GARG v. TABASSUM GAZALA

2015-07-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—On 3.7.2015 when this petition and the connected petition was taken up on the request of counsel for the petitioners, the matter was adjourned for today with the specific understanding that both these petitions as well as three revisions arising from the some suit which has given rise to this petition would be decided finally on the next date provided nomination is obtained from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in the said three revisions also for getting them decided by the same Court. In pursuance of the above, the Hon’ble The Chief Justice has been pleased to direct that all the connected cases be placed before this Court. In furtherance thereof this writ petition alongwith connected writ petition and aforesaid three revisions have been placed in the additional list today. 2. Sri Ajai Shankar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners today seeks an adjournment on the pretext that the petitioners have withdrawn instructions from the earlier Senior Counsel and they want to engage another Senior Advocate and that no Senior Advocate is available on account of the elections of the Bar Association. 3. The above request is nothing but an abuse of the process only in order to get the matter adjourned. If the petitioners chooses to withdraw instructions from the counsel at the last moment, they do it at their risk. Accordingly, request for adjournment of this petition on the above grounds is not acceptable. 4. At this stage counsel for the petitioners moved an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the petitioners want to challenge the nomination made by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice before the Supreme Court. 5. The observation for seeking nomination from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice was made in the order dated 3.7.2015 on the consensus of the counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, apparently the petitioners cannot have any grievance regarding the nomination made by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in order to facilitate speedy and early redressal of the dispute arising from a suit which is pending since 2004 and in which several directions have been issued by this Court for expeditious disposal curtailing all unnecessary adjournments. 6. This apart, the petitioners are free to take recourse of law and challenge the order by which they are aggrieved in the higher Court but adjournment on the said ground cannot be permitted. 7. 6. This apart, the petitioners are free to take recourse of law and challenge the order by which they are aggrieved in the higher Court but adjournment on the said ground cannot be permitted. 7. In view of the above, Application No. Nil of 2015 of date filed in the Court today for adjournment is rejected. 8. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the only prayer made is for a direction upon respondent No. 9, Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad not to proceed and decide Original Suit No. 274 of 2004 (Amit Garg and another v. Smt. Tabassum Gazala and others) until and unless the revision Nos. 143 of 2015, 145 of 2015 and 146 of 2015 as well as the inquiry alleged to have been initiated against the presiding officer on the administrative side are decided. 9. The pendency of any inquiry on the administrative side against the presiding officer does not come in the way of the proceedings of the suit as the presiding officer has not been stopped under any order from discharging his judicial functions and from hearing the cases including the above mentioned suit. 10. In none of the revisions referred to above which arise from the interlocutory orders passed in the above suit there is no interim order restraining the Court below from proceeding ahead with the suit. 11. On the contrary, in Civil Revision No. 183 of 2005 between the parties, decided by this Court on 10.5.2006, a categorical direction was issued that the trial Court shall make endeavor to decide the suit without granting any unnecessary adjournment, expeditiously. 12. A similar direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2010 while deciding petition No. 151 of 2010 under Article 227 of the Constitution, to the Court concern to decide the suit expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 13. In Civil Revision No. 391 of 2010 between the parties, by an interim order a direction was issued to the Court below to speedily record the evidence of the plaintiff and the pendency of the revision would not be ground for any adjournment. 14. 13. In Civil Revision No. 391 of 2010 between the parties, by an interim order a direction was issued to the Court below to speedily record the evidence of the plaintiff and the pendency of the revision would not be ground for any adjournment. 14. Subsequently, another petition No. 942 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution was finally disposed of by this Court on 25.4.2011 with the direction to the Court concern to decide the above suit in accordance with law most expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment or any stay of proceedings from any higher or superior Court. 15. When the above direction issued by this Court was not followed, in a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 820 of 2012 an order was passed on 14.2.2012 by this Court affording one more opportunity to the Court below to ensure compliance of the directions of this Court. 16. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 28727 of 2012 arising from the same suit, it was observed vide final order dated 6.7.2012 that the trial Court seized of the matter is conscious of the fact that directives for early disposal of the matter have been issued earlier and that it should make all endeavor to get the suit decided at the earliest. 17. In another petition No. 1938 of 2012 which was decided on 3.10.2012 a direction was issued to the Court below to decide all applications pending in the suit expeditiously to ensure speedy disposal of the suit as directed earlier. 18. Again in Writ Petition No. 58160 of 2013 this Court on 21.1.2014 while deciding the petition finally this Court observed that the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 29.1.2014 whereupon the Court will fix a date and proceed to decide the suit most expeditiously keeping in view the earlier direction of this Court in that regard. 19. Thereafter in one another Writ Petition No. 14195 of 2014 this Court vide order dated 6.3.2014, in order to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit, directed the parties to produce their witnesses by a particular date for the purposes of cross-examination which was directed to be completed within a time bound period. 20. 19. Thereafter in one another Writ Petition No. 14195 of 2014 this Court vide order dated 6.3.2014, in order to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit, directed the parties to produce their witnesses by a particular date for the purposes of cross-examination which was directed to be completed within a time bound period. 20. In addition to the above, this Court on 30.5.2014 while disposing of Civil Revision No. 244 of 2014, directed the Court below to proceed with the suit on merits, in accordance with law, without granting any further opportunity or any kind of adjournment to the petitioners. 21. In the last, by an order dated 11.12.2014 while deciding Civil Revision No. 92 of 2012, this Court observed that there are already ample directions by this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and, therefore, the Court below is directed to keep in mind the said directions and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 22. In the above background, it is crystal clear that the anxiety of this Court is to get the above suit decided expeditiously within a time bound period which had already expired long back, without granting any unnecessary adjournment. However, it appears that endeavor of the petitioners is to sabotage the proceedings and see that the suit is not decided on merits despite the fact that the suit is of the petitioners themselves. 23. As stated earlier, there is no interim order in any of the above revisions which may justify installation of the proceedings of the suit. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no good reason or justification for exercising any supervisory or discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners to keep in abeyance the decision of the suit either till the disposal of the above revisions or the inquiry which may be pending against the presiding officer. 25. The petition, as such, does not warrant any indulgence and is dismissed. ———————