JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure No. 10 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut on the applications (Paper No. 11C and Paper No. 13C2) filed in Misc. Appeal No. 269 of 2002.
2. The dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed shop".
3. From the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondents filed a Release Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop. The said Release Application was registered as P.A. Case No. 72 of 1998. Copy of the said Release Application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.
4. It further appears that the petitioner contested the said Release Application, and filed Written Statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition.
5. It further appears that by the judgment and order dated 31.8.2002, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/Prescribed Authority Meerut, allowed the said Release Application filed by the respondents. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 31.8.2002 has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 269 of 2002.
7. It further appears that during the pendency of the said Misc. Appeal No. 269 of 2002, the petitioner filed an application dated 16.4.2003 (Paper No. 11 C2), interalia, praying for taking on record the affidavit including the documents filed alongwith the affidavit. Copy of the said application dated 16.4.2003 (Paper No. 11 C2) has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition. Copy of the said affidavit has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition.
8. It further appears that another application dated 6.5.2003 (Paper No. 13C2) was filed, interalia, praying for taking on record the document filed along with the said application. Copy of the said application dated 6.5.2003 (Paper No. 13C2) has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition.
9. It further appears that Objections were filed on behalf of the respondents against the said application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
10. By the order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure No. 10 to the Writ Petition) the learned District Judge, Meerut rejected the said application (Paper No. 11C2) and the said application (Paper No. 13C2) filed on behalf of the petitioner.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
12. I have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
13. From the above narration of the facts, it is evident that the order dated 17.11.2003 impugned in the present Writ Petition has been passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut on applications (Paper No. 11C2 and Paper No. 13C2) filed on behalf of the petitioner for bringing on record the evidence during the pendency of the said Misc. Appeal No. 269 of 2002, and the said order is evidently an interlocutory order. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order before this Court, in case, the final decision in the said Misc. Appeal No. 269 of 2002 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges such final decision before this Court.
14. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 17.11.2003, I am of the opinion that ho interference is called for with the said order at this stage.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.