DURGA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners have sought relief of certioran for quashing the order dated 14. 8. 2007 contained in annexure-8 and the order dated 10. 5. 2007 contained in Annexure-7 respectively passed by the opposite party No. 1 upholding the order dated 2. 3. 2007 contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition and the order dated 14. 2. 2006 contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2 and further relief, which may appear to be just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, has also been sought for.

(2.) THE relief sought for in the writ petition rests on the facts that on 20. 9. 2004 opposite party No. 3 instituted a suit No. 659 of 2004 for ejectment and damage against the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that he is the owner of the premises No. 6/123 Guru Ravidas Nagar, Wazir Hasan Road. Lucknow, having purchased the same from its previous owner Vipin Behari and Smt. Madhuri Saini by a registered sale deed dated 19. 12. 2002 and the petitioners were inducted as licensee in the year 1993 and their licence having been revoked through registered notice, despite thereof, they are occupying the premises in question unauthorizedly without any right or title and are liable to be ejected. After service of summons of suit, petitioners had put in their appearance on 6. 11. 2004 seeking adjournment to file written statement. The case accordingly adjourned to 9. 2. 2005, on which date it was adjourned to 10. 2. 2005 as 9. 2. 2005 was declared as holiday. (9. 1. 2005 appears to be wrongly written in the writ petition ). On 10. 2. 2005, opposite party No. 3 made an application under Order 8, Rules 1 and 10 of the C. P. C. , whereupon the date was fixed for 12. 5. 2005 for disp. osal of objection, if any, filed against the said application. Copy of the application is on record as annexure-1 of the writ petition. On 12. 5. 2005 the case was adjourned as the Courts were closed after lunch due to said demise of a Counsel and date was fixed for 18. 7. 2005, on which date, p'etitioners made an application seeking adjournment to file written statement, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and 9. 8. 2005 was fixed to file written statement. On 9. 8. 2005 petitioners could not get written statement prepared with the result, they made application seeking time, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- as cost and a date 12. 8. 2005 was fixed, on that day it was adjourned to 25. 8. 2005 on an application made by the petitioners on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost. 25. 8. 2005 was holiday, hence the case was adjourned for 14. 9. 2005, on that day an application was made by the petitioners seeking time to file written statement, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and the case was fixed for 17. 10. 2005, on that day it was adjourned to 14. 11. 2005. On 14. 11. 2005 Presiding Officer was on leave, hence the case was' adjourned for 15. 12. 2005 and on 15. 12. 2005 the petitioners have filed their obi jeclion paper No. C-19 to the application made by opposite party No. 3 under Order 8, Rules 1 and 10 of the C. P. C. A true copy of the objection is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. On 15. 12. 2005, petitioners made applicatioi for adjournment of the case, which was fixed for disposal of application undei Order 8, Rules 1 and 10 C. P. C, the application was allowed and the case wai fixed for 14. 2. 2006.

(3.) ON 14. 2. 2006, an application was moved by the petitioners that smci Sri Ramashanker Singh, Advocate, their Counsel is out of station and has goni to Delhi and will return on 18. 2. 2006 and thereafter he would proceed orf 21. 2. 2006 for pilgrimage and will return back on 27. 2. 2006, hence some date mal be fixed for disposal of application under Order 8, Rules 1 and 10 of the C. P. C'f Photo state copy of the said application is on record as Annexure-3 of the wril petition but in spite of the aforesaid application of the petitioner foi adjournment of the case, the Court has proceeded with the disposal of th ( application of opposite party No. 3 under Order 8, Rules 1 and 10 of the C. P. C by observing that nobody has pressed the application for adjournment and fixer 22. 3. 2006 the date for evidence of the plaintiff and hearing of the suit bv striking of the defence of the petitioners.