Udai Pratap Singh & Ors vs Gulab Das And Ors
- SCC(2011) 15 SCC 794
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The High Court cannot dismiss a writ petition solely on the ground of delay in pendency, particularly where the delay itself is attributable to the High Court's own docket management rather than to the actions of the party. A writ petition on substantive grounds relating to release of tenancy must be decided on its merits by the High Court in accordance with law, notwithstanding the length of pendency before it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(From the judgment and order dated 10/08/2007 in CMWP No. 15464/1984 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
UDAI PRATAP SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GULAB DAS AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. for exemption from filing O.T., prayer for interim relief and with office report )
Date: 06/04/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Garima Prashad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. J.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anu Sawhney, Adv. Ms. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. S.K. Diwakar, Adv. Mr. D.P. Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(S. Thapar) (Madhu Saxena) PS to Registrar Court Master
The signed order is placed on the file. 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2202 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1971 of 2008)
UDAI PRATAP SINGH & OTHERS ...APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
GULAB DAS & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Leave granted.
Appellant is the landlord. He had instituted release application on the ground of
personal requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Trial
Court decreed the petition. However, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the release
application. Aggrieved by the decision of the Lower Appellate Court, the landlord moved
the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15464 of 1984. By the impugned order the
High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition only on the ground that the matter had been
pending litigation for 22 years. In our view, the High Court ought not to have dismissed
the Writ Petition, particularly, when the matter was pending in the High Court from 1984.
The High Court should have decided the matter on merits. It has not done so. One cannot
find fault with the petitioner for pendency of the writ petition from 1984.
In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted
to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
We request the High Court to expeditiously hear and dispose of the pending 3
Writ Petition within a period of six months. The appellant is directed to take all necessary
steps to bring the legal representatives of the contesting respondent on record.
Civil Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
....................J. [ S.H. KAPADIA ]
New Delhi, ....................J April 06, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free