Court No. - 24 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 3841 of 2010 Petitioner :- Radha Krishna S/O Girdhari Respondent :- District Judge, Unnao & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Anoop Srivastava Ii Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B.L. Verma Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri B.L. Verma, learned
Counsel for the opposite party No. 3.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the
order dated 22.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Unnao-opposite
party No.1 and the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Unnao-opposite party No.2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken
a loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for purchasing a Tractor from the opposite party
No.3 and paid certain amount but due to financial crunch, he did not pay
the amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for loan
and as such, an order for attachment was issued. Feeling aggrieved,
the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was numbered as writ
petition No. 1848 (MS) of 2005 before this Court. This Court, vide order
dated 4.5.2005, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the
petitioner to repay half of the amount within three months and remaining
half amount in two equal instalments. In compliance thereof, the
petitioner deposited entire loan amount but subsequently, another notice
was issued by the opposite party No.3, whereby the petitioner was
directed to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- upto 26.5.2007, against which, he
preferred another writ petition, which was numbered as writ petition No.
2878 (MS) of 2007 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated
11.6.2007, dismissed the writ petition but it was provided that the
petitioner may file a suit, if he so desires. Thereafter, the petitioner has
filed a suit for declaration of right and permanent injunction along with
an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure but the opposite party No.2 rejected the temporary injunction
filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
the order dated 22.4.2009.
Against the order dated 22.4.2009, the petitioner filed an appeal and the
District Judge, Lucknow dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the
petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
On the other hand, Sri B.L. Verma, learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.3 submits that the District Judge, while dismissing the appeal
provided that petitioner may approach appropriate authority for
settlement of his dispute but instead of approaching the appropriate
authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition just to delay the
proceedings pending before the Court below.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records,
I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders.
The writ petition is dismissed.
However, in case the petitioner moves an application for expediting the
trial of Regular Suit No. 84 of 2008, it is expected that the trial Court will
consider the same in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
Ajit/-