Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2161 (JHR)

Lakhrajo Devi v. Tata Iron And Steel Company Ltd

2018-09-28

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Conduct of the parties to the writ petition must be deprecated. Not only the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant documents, inspite of specific order of the Court on 23.08.2018 records before executing court and orders passed in the previous proceedings have not been produced by the respondent. 2. By an order dated 07.04.2005 further proceeding in Execution Case No. 42 of 1993 has been stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this order has continued for over 13 years by now. 3. This writ petition has been listed on as many as 12 occasions. 4. After 07.04.2005 this writ petition was listed on 28.06.2011 when at the instance of the petitioner the matter was adjourned by two weeks. On the next date of hearing the Court directed the matter to be placed before appropriate Court. On 24.08.2016 nobody appeared for the petitioner and on 21.06.2017 the matter was again adjourned at the instance of the petitioner by two weeks. Thereafter, proceeding of this writ petition has been adjourned either at the instance of the petitioner or at the instance of the respondent on 07.07.2017, 26.07.2017, 07.08.2017, 19.08.2017, 04.10.2017 and 14.06.2018. Order dated 17.07.2018 reads as under : "By an order dated 07.04.2005 further proceeding in Execution Case No. 42 of 1993 was stayed by this Court. Till date the petitioner has not cared to complete the pleadings. Let record of Execution Case No. 42 of 1993 be called from the court concerned within four weeks. Post the matter on 23.08.2018 under the same heading." 5. Still, when necessary documents were not produced on record, on 23.08.2018 the following order was passed by the Court: "Not only stay is operating against the respondent-M/s Tata Iron and Steel Limited (previously known as Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited) it has also not produced the relevant documents which are necessary for examining the stand taken by it. On the request of Mr. G. M. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s Tata Iron and Steel Limited for producing the records which were filed before the executing court and orders passed in the previous proceedings, post the matter on 28.09.2018 under the heading "Final Disposal". Interim order dated 07.04.2005 shall continue." 6. Mr. On the request of Mr. G. M. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s Tata Iron and Steel Limited for producing the records which were filed before the executing court and orders passed in the previous proceedings, post the matter on 28.09.2018 under the heading "Final Disposal". Interim order dated 07.04.2005 shall continue." 6. Mr. G. M. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. submits that a copy of the application filed in Execution Case No. 42 of 1993 and the renewed lease-deed have been produced through the supplementary affidavit dated 24.09.2018. 7. In my opinion, without perusing orders passed in the previous proceedings; it is stated that the matter had gone up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the controversy involved in the writ petition cannot be decided. The lower court records have been summoned still the parties have failed to produce the relevant pleadings and orders on record. 8. In the above facts, the petitioner as well as the respondent-Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. are saddled with cost of Rs. 50,000/- each. The amount of cost shall be deposited by both the parties within six weeks with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi. 9. Post the matter on 22.11.2018.