Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 210 (ALL)

Anamika Pandey v. Syed Naeem Ahmad

2019-01-25

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 27431 MS of 2017 (Anamika Pandey Vs. Syed Naeem Ahmad) before this Court praying for expeditious disposal of SCC Suit No. 51 of 2009 re-numbered as SCC Suit No. 320 of 2017. 3. This petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 15.11.2017 directing the learned Court below to expedite disposal of SCC Suit No. 51 of 2009 as re-numbered. A copy of the order was filed before the Court concerned on 5.12.2017, but the proceedings have not been expedited. A prayer has therefore been made for a direction to the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow to decide the SCC Suit said to be pending before him within a time period as prescribed by this Court and not to grant unnecessary adjournments. 4. It has been submitted further that prior to the filing of Writ Petition No. 27431 MS of 2017 by the petitioner, her predecessor-in-interest, one Yogendra Kumar had filed one petition before this Court, namely Petition No. 7479 MS of 2013 with a prayer that a direction be issued to the learned Trial Court to complete the cross examination of Yogendra Kumar and that the hearing of the Suit be expedited. 5. This Court disposed of the petition on 13.11.2013 with liberty to the writ-petitioner - Yogendra Kumar to move an appropriate application before the Court concerned to take into consideration the difficulty faced by the petitioner when repeated adjournments was being granted and to pass appropriate orders fixing date for cross examination of the writ petitioner. Yogendra Kumar had moved such an application and his cross examination was completed thereafter by the learned Trial Court. However, he sold off the property in question to the petitioner and the petitioner was later on impleaded as a plaintiff in the said Suit. Now however, despite all attempts of the petitioner to get the Suit disposed of, it is still pending before the learned Trial Court. Repeatedly adjournments are being granted to the defendant. 6. However, he sold off the property in question to the petitioner and the petitioner was later on impleaded as a plaintiff in the said Suit. Now however, despite all attempts of the petitioner to get the Suit disposed of, it is still pending before the learned Trial Court. Repeatedly adjournments are being granted to the defendant. 6. This Court while hearing the case yesterday had put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how a third petition with respect to prayer for disposal of SCC Suit No. 51 of 2009 renumbered as SCC 320 of 2017, can be entertained. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances in a matter under Article 227 numbered 6765 of 2018 (M.S Triveni Build Zone Private Ltd. Vs. Vivek Nand Rai & others) decided on 12.9.2018. 8. This Court had taken into account that the first Appeal from order of the learned Trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 1342 of 2015 rejecting the plaintiff's prayer for ad-interim injunction, had been disposed of by the Division Bench of the Court with the observations that the learned Court below shall decide the Suit expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, and no unnecessary adjournment shall be sought by either of the parties. The Suit was not disposed of as directed by the Court, the plaintiff tried to delay the proceedings. The respondent had also approached this Court in a matter under Article 227 numbered 8317 of 2017, and apprised the Court of the order of the learned Trial Court by which it had rejected the prayer for framing additional issues. The Court disposed of the petition no. 8317 of 2017 on 31.1.2018 as withdrawn. This only meant that the respondent to the Suit was unnecessarily trying to delay the matter and this Court had refused to interfere, by observing that against the order rejecting the prayer for framing additional issues, a revision under Section 115 CPC was maintainable. The respondent - Vivek Nand thereafter filed Civil Revision No. 38 of 2018 against the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting his prayer for framing additional issues. The said revision was disposed of on 20.2.2018. 9. The respondent - Vivek Nand thereafter filed Civil Revision No. 38 of 2018 against the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting his prayer for framing additional issues. The said revision was disposed of on 20.2.2018. 9. This Court in M/S Triveni Build Zone (supra) having heard the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner that all kinds of delaying tactics were being adopted by the plaintiff - respondent observed that once the Division Bench in First Appeal From Order had directed to conclude the proceedings within six months, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to finalise the proceedings in question without any further delay. This Court therefore directed the Court concerned to complete the hearing and decide the Suit in question within a period of four months from the date of the order. 10. I have gone through the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.9.2018 as aforesaid in M/S Triveni Build Zone Private Ltd. (supra). The judgment of this Court does not deal with specific issue whether a second petition under Article 227 for expediting the disposal of the Suit before the learned Trial Court was maintainable. 11. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment and order dated 25.4.2011 passed in a matter under Article 227 numbered 942 of 2011 (Smt. Tabassum Gazala Vs. Ravi Bala Garg & others). The Court observed that earlier also Writ Petition No. 151 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner for expediting the hearing of the Original Suit No. 274 of 2004 and this Court had on 5.5.2010 issued direction to the Court concerned to decide the Suit expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Despite such observations of the Court dated 5.5.2010, repeated adjournments were being granted and the attempt at delaying the trial of the Suit had succeeded. This Court disposed of the petition filed by Smt. Tabassum Gazala with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the Suit in question expeditiously within a period of six months. 12. The judgment cited by the learned counsel in Smt. Tabassum Gazala (supra) also does not deal with the issue whether a second petition under Article 227 would be maintainable for issuance of a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the Suit expeditiously. 13. 12. The judgment cited by the learned counsel in Smt. Tabassum Gazala (supra) also does not deal with the issue whether a second petition under Article 227 would be maintainable for issuance of a direction to the learned Trial Court to decide the Suit expeditiously. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 . The respondent therein had filed a writ petition praying for correction of his serial number in the seniority list issued by the Board. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge who observed while disposing of the writ petition thus "necessarily it follows that the petitioner is entitled to such other consequential benefits that he might earn consequent upon this revision of ranking." 14. The Board challenged the order passed by the Writ-Court in an Appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.3.1998 and Special Leave Petition was thereafter dismissed by the Supreme Court. The judgment having attained finality, consequential benefits were not being given to the respondents. He filed two contempt petitions, namely Contempt Petition No. 12 of 1998 and Contempt Petition No. 1134 of 1999 which were also dismissed. He filed a fresh writ petition thereafter, namely Writ Petition No. 10722 of 2000. It was dismissed by the Writ-Court, but in Appeal, the Division Bench observed that consequential benefits, for example, monitory benefits as were available on revision his seniority were not given to him by the respondents and they should have been given to him. 15. The Board challenged the order of the Division Bench by filing Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in which Special Leave Petition i.e. the case cited as aforesaid, the Supreme Court observed that after the order of the Writ-Court having attained finality and contempt petition being dismissed, the Board had passed a fresh order on 1.6.1998 relying upon the 'principle of no work no pay', and directed that he would not eligible for arrears of pay and allowances for any earlier period since they had not actually worked in the cadre of Superintendents and Assistant Revenue Officers, in view of the provisions of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973. It was this order which was coming in the way of giving all consequential benefits, and therefore the writ petition was filed, and it was maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Board and held that once a Court of law had decided an issue and the Appeal against such order was also dismissed, it could not be made ineffective by non complying with the direction on specious plea that no such direction could have been issued by the Court in view of the provisions of the Act. 16. Clearly the said case law is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the end submits that this petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Court concerned asking it to comply with the earlier directions of the Court, and not to adjourn the matter only on the plea that transfer application has been filed by the respondent. 18. This Court finds substance in the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is disposed of with the observations that mere filing of transfer application do not entitle any party to seek an adjournment and thus nullify the order of the Court to such an extent as to delay the disposal of the Suit which has already been directed to be decided as expeditiously as possible by the High Court. 19. It is always open for the petitioner to file a contempt petition, if he is so advised, for the orders of the Writ-Court have not been complied with by the Presiding Officer of the learned Trial Court.