Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5975 of 2018
Petitioner :- Devi Singh
Respondent :- Megh Singh And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices need not go to the private respondents.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the judgement and orders dated 06.04.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C. no.1, Hathras in Misc. Civil Appeal no.20 of 2015 (Devi Singh vs. Megh Singh and others) and order dated 06.10.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sadabad, Hathras in Original Suit no.215 of 2012 (Devi Singh vs. Megh Singh and others).
It appears that the land Gata no.677 (new no.431) situated in village Nagla Banjara Bhad Khauda, Tehsil Sadabad, District Hathras has been allotted in favour of petitioner and when the respondents have tried to dispossess the petitioner from the allotted land in question, the petitioner has filed Suit no.215/2012 (Devi Singh vs. Megh Singh and others) seeking permanent injunction alongwith application 7Ga(2). The said application was rejected by order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sadabad, Hathras. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has filed Appeal no.20/2015 (Devi Singh vs. Megh Singh and others). The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2018 on the ground that petitioner could not prove his possession over the property in dispute.
Both the Courts below have recorded categorical findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. The Court finds no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.
Once the Court has declined to interfere with the impugned orders, then learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the aforesaid suit at the earliest.
In view of the decision in the case of Km. Shobha Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes Court 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB), it is not proper to issue any positive direction for time bound disposal of any proceedings without ascertaining the position of the workload in the court concern and in the absence of any allegation that the court below is responsible for the delay.
Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the Court concerned to expedite the proceeding of pending Suit No.172 of 1999 (Inra Devi (deceased) and ors vs. Atma Ram Pandey and another), in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018
A. Pandey