Bombay High Court
Mrs. Hazra Khatoon, Thr. Poa. Holder Mr. ... vs Union Of India Thr. Secretary Of Defence ... on 16 August, 2017
Author: M. S. Sanklecha
Bench: M. S. Sanklecha
(904) CRA 438-17
Sarnobat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 438 OF 2017
IN
MISC. APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2017
IN
CASE NO. 8271/SCS-2674/14/HK/2015
Mrs. Hazra Khatoon. .. Applicant
Vs.
Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents.
Mr. Samir Sarambalkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Dr. G.R. Sharma a/w Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATE : 16th AUGUST, 2017.
P. C. :
1. This civil revision application challenges order dated 3rd August, 2017 passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Bombay.
By the impugned order the applicant's appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 (Act) was dismissed.
2. Mr. Sarambalkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that the challenge in this CRA is only on the ground that impugned order has been passed with material irregularity inasmuch as its submission before the Principal Judge of City Civil Court Bombay, that a letter dated 29th January, 1994 addressed by Station Headquarters 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:02:04 ::: (904) CRA 438-17 (respondents) to him indicated that on the applicant depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/- Kiosks would be allotted to him, in the defence area. However, the same has not been allotted to him till date. Therefore, the eviction under the Act before allotment of Kiosks, was not justified.
3. I find no mention of the aforesaid submission in the impugned order. Therefore, one has to proceed on the basis that it was not made. However, Mr. Sarambalkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that the submission was made before the Court, yet the impugned order does not even deal with it and, therefore, this CRA be admitted and stay granted.
4. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Nayak 1982 (2) SCC, 463 and in Central Bank of India Vs. Vrajlal Kuperchand Gandhi, 2003 (6) SCC 573 happening in court as recorded in the order of the court are conclusive If a party thinks happening in Court is not properly recorded, then, the party must move that very Court to have the correct facts brought on record. It is not open to a party to make a grievance before the higher forum that the lower authority has not recorded the submissions made by the party and therefore, not dealt with.
5. In the above view, the applicant seeks two weeks time to 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:02:04 ::: (904) CRA 438-17 make an appropriate application to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court to have the fact of the above submission being made before him before passing the impugned order, on record.
6. In the above view, at the request of the petitioner, the petition is adjourned to 29th August, 2017. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive step to evict the Applicant till 31st August, 2017.
7. Stand over to 29th August, 2017.
[ M. S. SANKLECHA, J. ] 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:02:04 :::