Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6035 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sudarshan Prasad Respondent :- Meena Devi Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Kumar Ojha
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices need not go to the respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 4.8.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Ballia in Misc. Civil Appeal No.174 of 2016 (Smt. Meena Devi vs. Sudarshan Prasad) and for direction to the respondents not to disturb his immovable property.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that both the Court below has 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 order, then learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the aforesaid suit within stipulated time.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, has made the following observations:-
" It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the Court concerned to expedite the proceeding of pending Suit No.657 of 2015 (Sudarshan Prasad vs. Smt. Meena Devi) and conclude the same, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 RKP