LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-29

SHAUKAT ALI Vs. ALI AHMAD

Decided On March 08, 2013
SHAUKAT ALI Appellant
V/S
ALI AHMAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a unique writ petition filed by the defendants against an order relating to a suit of 1984. The unique feature of the writ petition is that the impugned order is in favour of the petitioners. This writ petition is directed against order dated 2.1.2013 passed by A.D.J. Court no.1 Jaunpur in Civil Revision no.54 of 2012, Shaukat Ali and others Vs. Ali Ahmad and others. Petitioners are defendants in O.S. no.42 of 1984 Ali Ahmad and others Vs. Amin and others. Petitioners filed application for amendment in the written statement which was rejected by the trial court i.e. civil Judge (J.D.) Jaunpur. Against the said order the revision was filed. Revision has been allowed, order rejecting the amendment application has been set aside and amendment has been allowed on payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost. Further direction has been issued that the suit shall be heard by the trial court on day to day basis. The grievance is that this direction of day to day basis hearing has wrongly been given. The very fact of filing of this writ petition proves beyond doubt that petitioners are interested only and only in delaying the proceedings of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendants petitioners states that they have filed another revision (Civil Revision no.152 of 2010) against order passed by the trial court on the issue of court fees and valuation which is pending and until decision of the said revision suit shall not be decided. If in the revision there is no stay order then there is absolutely no question of delaying the proceedings of the suit for a single day. On inquiry from court regarding the secret of longevity of the suit learned counsel for the petitioners states that 14 years were consumed in deciding misc. appeal against temporary injunction order and file of the suit had been summoned therein.

(2.) The court completely fails to under stand that what is happening at the Jaunpur District Court. First of all, it is not understandable that why such a long time was taken in deciding misc. appeal against temporary injunction order. Secondly, it is not understandable that why in the appeal file of the suit was summoned which resulted in holding up of the proceedings of the suit even though no formal stay order was passed. District Judge is directed to take stock of the situation in respect of suits which are more than 20 years old and send a comprehensive report to the administrative judge. In more than 20 years suits adjournments in any form shall be granted on good increasing cost starting from Rs.300/- per adjournment payable before the next date. As far as the suit in question is concerned trial court is directed to positively comply with the direction of the A.D.J. dated 2.1.2013 and under no circumstances the suit shall be adjourned.

(3.) As far as the question of revision against order passed on the issue of valuation and court fees is concerned even if it is not decided before the decision of the suit it will not make much difference. If suit is decided against the petitioners and they file appeal then they will be at liberty to challenge the order pertaining to valuation and court fees also.