SHIV NARAIN Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner again states that he is not receiving instructions from his client. However, he states that he is ready to argue the matter, though he prays for two weeks adjournment to place on record copy of the title documents in favour of Mr. Moti Ram, great grandfather of the present petitioners. The statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is contradictory.

(2.) The petitioners had not appeared before the Estate Officer and an ex parte eviction order dated 27th February, 2003 was passed.

(3.) The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal but did not file any document of title even before the appellate court. Request was made before the appellate court that the matter should be remanded back to enable the petitioners to establish title of their late grandfather Mr. Moti Ram. Learned Additional District Judge rejected the said contention as the petitioners had failed to file copy of the alleged document of title in favour of Mr. Moti Ram. It was observed that it would be the case of empty formality if the matter was remanded back. In spite of the said order, while filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have not filed any document of title. I am not, therefore, inclined to grant any further adjournment.