NIRMALA TANDON Vs. H N TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a writ peti tion in the nature of ceniorari quashing the orders dated 20-9-1995 as well as the order dated 28-9-1995 (Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Allahabad and III Additional District Judge, Allahabad. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought commanding the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the first appeal from order No. 904 of 1990, Nirmala Tandon and others v. H. N. Tandon and others filed before him on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THIS case has unfortunate an inter esting history. The petitioner is involved in the different orders of the Courts. Al lahabad Civil Court says that it has jurisdic tion to try the suit. The order was again recalled that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit regarding the immovable property is pending at Sitapur. That order was again recalled that it has no jurisdiction. The another important feature of the case is that the appeal is shuttling in the appellate Court and the High Court. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court granted ad interim injunction, despite the objection raised by the Stamp Reporter that it is barred by time by 77 days. THIS appeal has been filed in the district Court and the appeal on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction was sent to the High Court. Again U. P. Local Amendment came into force and the petitioner has again followed to take reverse gear and it was sent to the lower appellate Court as the jurisdiction of the lower appellate Court was increased. Again the point of limitation was raised and the appeal has been dismissed as time barred and the application has not been filed at proper time and at different stages of the proceedings.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued ;hat the order of the Court is patently" illegal and unreasonable. It was also submitted that there is jurisdictional error as well as abuse of the process of law. THE learned counsel for the respon dent has argued that the orders passed by the Court below are just and proper orders, and no interference is required.