MOHAN LAL SHUKLA Vs. NAZIMA BEGUM AND ANTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGDISH Bhalla, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 20-4-2001 passed by the District Judge Unnao in resent appeal No. 60 of 2001, contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition. The appeal against the order of Prescribed Authority has been admitted but interim relief application along with an application for issuance of commission has been rejected.

(2.) SRI Mohd. Arif Khan, Advocate, informs that he has sent a notice as Caveator on behalf of the respondents by registered post on 23-4-2001 and, there fore, he has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) IN light of the cause referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of equi table justice I am of the considered opinion that the principle of natural jus tice will suffice if a commission is issued. However, keeping in mind that the Prescribed Authority took more than 10 years to pronounce his order and there after the appeal was filed time barred in the year 2000 and an application for issuance of commission was only moved on 18-4-2001, without making observation against either side, the fact remains that sufficient delay has been caused before the Prescribed Authority itself when he took about 10 years and the matter thereafter is still pending before the appellate Court. I have already expressed my opinion that there is a need of issuance of commission to verify the fact whether son of the op posite parties is running a Saw Mill?