Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3021 (ALL)

Kalash Parmar v. Krishna Kanta Gupta

2015-09-22

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The predecessor in title of the first respondent instituted SCC suit no. 21 of 1974 for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment against the petitioners and the third respondent. 2. The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.2.2005. An application for recall of order dated 24.2.2005 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed by the plaintiff-respondents on 4.3.2005, which was registered as Misc. Case No.54/74 of 2005. The ground taken therein was that by inadvertence, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent noted the next date as 28.2.2005 instead of 24.2.2005, resulting in dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. 3. The petitioners moved an application on 30.9.2014 for directing the counsel for the plaintiff to produce his case diary. The application was rejected by the trial court by an order dated 30.9.2014. Thereafter, by an order dated 9.10.2014, the trial court recalled the order dated 24.2.2005 and restored the suit to its original number. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed on 9.10.2014 as well as the order dated 30.9.2014, whereby the application for summoning the case diary of the counsel was rejected, the petitioners filed two civil revision no. 23 of 2015 and 24 of 2015. Both the revisions have been dismissed by order dated 31.3.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the application for summoning the case diary of the counsel. It is further urged that the suit is of the year 1974 and thus it is the plaintiff-respondent who was negligent in prosecuting the suit. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the petitioner-tenants are adopting dilli-delaying tactics on account of which there had been delay in the disposal of the proceedings. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court on 9.10.2014 reveals that the trial court was convinced of sufficiency of grounds for non-appearance of the plaintiff-respondent on 24.2.2005. The order has been affirmed in revision. In exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order which merely seeks to restore the suit to its original number. In such view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. In exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order which merely seeks to restore the suit to its original number. In such view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. Since the suit is of the year 1974, it is desirable that the same be concluded expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.