Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2931 (ALL)

Vijay Prakash @ Kallu v. Babu Lal

2015-09-16

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner made an application in Original Suit No.429 of 1998 pending before A.C.J.M. 9th, Kanpur Nagar for initiating the proceedings against Sri Mridul Dubey, the Presiding Officer and the Bench Secretary Sri Ram Saran Srivastava for allegedly committing tampering in the court records. The prayer made is that they be punished or in case the matter is beyond jurisdiction of the court, it be referred to the District Judge or to this Court. 2. According to the petitioner, the tampering has been made by the bench Secretary in the plaint, by impleading respondents no.2 and 3 therein as the party defendants. It is not in dispute that the trial court allowed the impleadment application of respondents no.2 and 3 by order dated 5.2.2013. Revision filed against the said order was dismissed and a Writ Petition No.30027 of 2013 is pending at the instance of the petitioner, wherein there is no stay. 3. The application was rejected by the trial court holding that there is no justification for allowing the prayer made by the petitioner for referring the dispute to the District Judge or to the High Court. It has further been observed that the petitioner has the liberty of filing an appropriate application in that regard before the competent authority. Revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the trial court dated 1.7.2015 rejecting his application, has been dismissed by impugned order dated 24.8.2015. The revisional court has held that the order under challenge does not amount to a case decided and as such, the revision is not maintainable. It has further been observed that the Reader had made amendments in the plaint impleading respondents no.2 and 3 in pursuance of the direction of the court. The revisional court held that the court is competent to direct the Reader to do the clerical work like amendment in the plaint in the light of decision of this Court in 1989 All. L.J. 90 Kisan Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Deoria and others Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Deoria and others. Accordingly, the revision has been dismissed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned orders, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the orders which may warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Deoria and others. Accordingly, the revision has been dismissed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned orders, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the orders which may warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. In case any offence, as alleged by the petitioner, has been committed in relation to the court proceedings, it is always open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in that regard. Such liberty has also been granted to the petitioner by the order of the trial court impugned in the instant petition. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.