Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7367 of 2001 Petitioner :- Mangla Rai Respondent :- Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital & Others Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Dwivedi,P.K.Gupta Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Verma Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is a sad story of how a lawyer son is employing his legal
capabilities against his own father.
The petitioner in this petition is the father of respondent no. 5.
It appears that the petitioner let out a premises for opening a
hospital to the respondent no. 2 under a duly executed rent deed but
when the father was about to receive the rent after sanction by the
Government, he instituted an injunction suit no. 248 of 2000 claiming
that he was the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises and entitled
to rent wherein an interim injunction was granted which is challenged in
the present writ petition.
Notices were issued to the respondents including the son asking
them to file counter affidavit but about 9 years have elapsed yet no
counter affidavit has been filed.
Today when the matter was taken up, the counsel for the
respondent son produced a certified copy of an order dated 25.4.2003 by
which the respondent-tenant has been directed to deposit the rent in
Court and it is claimed that the order was passed with the consent of the
parties. The aforesaid certified copy has been taken on record and its
perusal shows that in desperation, the petitioner father had no option
except to accede to the deposit of rent in Court, despite the fact that he
has pleaded in the writ petition that the constructions were made after
obtaining a loan from a bank which is clamouring for repayment.
The suit had remained pending for the last 10 years and the court
has been informed at the bar that no substantial progress has been made
despite the fact that this court while entertaining this petition had passed
2
an order on 8.5.2001 directing the trial court to expedite the trial of the
case on priority basis.
After considering all the facts in detail, this petition is finally
disposed off by the following directions:-
i) The trial court shall dispose off the suit no. 248 of 2000 Madan
Gopal Ram Vs. Rajkiya Ayurvedi Chikitsalay and others within three
months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this
order;
ii) The plaintiff-respondent shall not be granted more than three
adjournments and that too not exceeding for a period of more than
a week at a time and after imposing cost of at least Rs.1000/-
payable to the petitioner-defendant;
iii) In case the cost for such adjournments is not paid before the next
date fixed in the suit, the entire amount of rent which is in deposit
with the court shall forthwith be released in favour of the petitioner-
defendant on his personal security other than cash or bank
guarantee;
iv) Learned District Judge, Ghazipur may monitor the disposal of the
aforesaid suit.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge,
Ghazipur to be made available to the trial judge for compliance.
It would further be open to the petitioner to approach this Court in
the present petition in case the trial is not completed within the
prescribed time.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
AU