Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And … vs Addl. District Judge,Hathras And … on 6 August, 2010
Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46543 of 2010

Petitioner :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Others
Respondent :- Addl. District Judge,Hathras And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Prakash Padia
Respondent Counsel :- Prakash Gupta,Rajesh Gupta

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Prakash Gupta for the
respondents.

By means of this petition, the petitioners have claimed the following reliefs:-

a) Issue a writ,order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by respondent no.1, the Additional
District Judge, Court No.1, Hathras ( Ann 22) passed in Misc.Appeal
No.15/2010-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3 others vs Rajesh Kumar
Agarwal & another.

b) issue a wri, order of direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.1 Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Hathras
to pass appropriate order on the stay application in Misc.Appeal No.15/2010
between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3 others Vs.Rajesh Kumar Agarwal &
another without considering the papers filed by respondents nos. 2 and 3
being Application Nos. 14-C2 and 15-C2.

c) issue a writ, order of direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.1 to decide the Revision No.17/2010 between
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3 others Vs.Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & another
expeditiously and without granting unnecessary adjournments.

In so far relief a) is concerned, the lower appellate court vide impugned order
allowed the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for taking
additional evidence on record on the ground that the documents sought to be
brought on record have been accepted on record for effective adjudication of
the dispute between the parties.

In view of the above, there is no illegality reflected from the order and the
relief prayed for is not liable to be granted.

In so far reliefs b) and c) are concerned, the petitioner already obtained
directions in writ petition no.23204/10 for expeditious disposal of the stay
application in the appeal and expeditious disposal of revision in writ petition
no.23539/10. Again in writ petition no.217/10 this court observed that the
court concerned may dispose of the stay application in the revision as early as
possible in pursuance to the directions issued by the Division Bench. Since
the petitioners have already approached this court earlier praying for the same
reliefs which have been granted, subsequent writ petition for the same reliefs
is not maintainable and as such other two reliefs are also not not liable to be
granted.

Even though the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the writ
petition but inaction on the part of the court concerned for failing to comply
with the directions is contemptuous in nature. However, this court at this stage
does not propose to take any action in the matter with the hope and trust that
the concerned court shall comply with the directions and dispose of the
matters as directed by the two Division Benches vide orders dated 3.5.2010
and 5.5.2010.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 6.8.2010
SM


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.159 seconds.