Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 898 (UTT)

Shail Kumar Datta v. Sanjeev Ratra

2016-11-29

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the Judge SCC/4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun to decide the SCC Suit No. 18 of 2016 “Shail Kumar Datta & others Vs. Sanjeev Ratra & others, as expeditiously as possible or within a stipulated period as prescribed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are the landlord of the property in dispute inherited by them from their father Sri Rajendra Mohan Datta. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 had been the tenants in the property in question on behalf of the petitioners, who inherited the said tenancy from their predecessor Sri Aayaram. According to the petitioners, defendant nos. 1 to 4 sublet the property to defendant no.5 without the consent of the landlord and business, under the name and style of defendant no.6, is being done on the said part of the property. On 21.04.2016, petitioners instituted SCC Suit No. 18 of 2016 against the respondents before the Court of Judge SCC, Dehradun for the eviction, recovery of rent and mesne profits. Subsequently, the said file was transferred to the Court of Judge SCC/4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun. It is alleged that the said suit was instituted on 21.04.2016 and the defendant nos. 1 & 2 have filed their written statement, but the same has not been decided so far. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned for the petitioners argued that Rule 3(1)(i) read with Rule 3(2) of the Uttarakhand Case Flow Management (For Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2009 provides that the Presiding Officer shall endeavour to dispose of such cases within one year. He submitted that, in the case in hand, the said suit was filed on 21.04.2016, but the same has not been decided so far. He submitted that more than seven months have passed, but due to one reason or the other, proceedings have been prolonged in the matter and the case could not be heard. He submitted that, due to the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners are facing great hardship and are being deprived of their lawful right. He submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is 68 years old and wants that the said suit may be decided during his lifetime. He submitted that, due to the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners are facing great hardship and are being deprived of their lawful right. He submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is 68 years old and wants that the said suit may be decided during his lifetime. He prayed that direction may be issued to the Judge SCC/4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun to decide the SCC Suit No. 18 of 2016 “Shail Kumar Datta & others Vs. Sanjeev Ratra & others” at the earliest. 5. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the papers available on record. 6. In my considered view, the suit of such a nature should not be kept pending for a long period. In the present case, the said suit was filed on 21.04.2016 and about seven months have passed, but the same has not been decided so far. 7. In view of order, which this Court is proposing to pass, notice is not being sent to other parties. Issuance of notice, may further delay the proceedings. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Judge SCC/4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun to decide the SCC Suit No. 18 of 2016 “Shail Kumar Datta & others Vs. Sanjeev Ratra & others” expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. However, it is observed that the trial Court will also take into account all other old SCC cases. In my view, oldest cases should be decided on priority basis.