Allahabad High Court
Sri Ram Badhvani @ Jai Sri Ram Badhvani ... vs Praveen Kumar Bajaj And 2 Others on 29 September, 2020
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2811 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sri Ram Badhvani @ Jai Sri Ram Badhvani And Another Respondent :- Praveen Kumar Bajaj And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava,Pankaj Srivastava Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners by means of the present petition have prayed that a direction be issued to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura to decide the S.C.C. Misc. Application No. 109 of 2018 (Sri Ram Badhvani & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kumar Bajaj & Anr.) in S.C.C. No.15 of 2017 (Praveen Kumar Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Shri Ram Badhwani & Ors.) The facts as transpires from the record are that the respondent-Praveen Kumar Bajaj instituted S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2017 (Praveen Kumar Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Shri Ram Badhwani & Ors.) for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioners from House No. 86 New ( 592 Old) Banke Bihari Colony, Brindavan, District Mathura. The suit was decreed ex parte on 08.10.2018 by the court of Khafifa/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura. When the petitioners came to know about the ex parte judgment dated 08.10.2018, the petitioners filed application dated 22.10.2018 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., which was numbered as Misc. Case No.109 of 2018. The ex parte decree was executed and the petitioners have been evicted from the house in question.
The petitioners apprehends that the respondents may sale the property in question and once third party right is created, their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. would become infructuous as the only remedy of the petitioners is to file a suit for recovery against the purchaser of the property in question.
In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that considering the urgency of the matter, the court below may be directed to decide the application of the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. within a fixed time.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the petitioners without any delay have filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to recall the ex parte judgment and decree and during the pendency of the said application, the petitioners have been evicted, this Court finds appropriate to issue a direction to the court below to decide S.C.C. Misc. Application No. 109 of 2018 (Sri Ram Badhvani & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kumar Bajaj & Anr.) in S.C.C. No.15 of 2017 (Praveen Kumar Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Shri Ram Badhwani & Ors.) within a period of one year from the date of production of copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
In case any adjournment is inevitable, the court below may grant the same by imposing heavy cost which may not be less than Rs.1,000/-.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Considering the facts and circumtances of the case, this Court further direct the respondents not to create third party right in the property in question till the disposal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C.
In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the petitioners may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 29.9.2020 Ravi Kant