- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Manish Kumar for the opposite party No. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to file rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. With the consent of parties' Counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.
(2.) Under challenge is the order dated 31.5.2011, by which the cross-objections filed in the Appeal No. 93 of 2010, have been rejected with cost of Rs. 5,000/-, basically on the ground that the said objections have been filed with the intention to delay the proceedings before the Appellate Court.
(3.) Relevant facts of the case are that an application under section 21 of the Rent Control Act for release of the shop in question was moved by the father of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 against the opposite party Nos. 5 to 10 as well as against the petitioner. The said release application was allowed against which an appeal under section 22 of the Rent Control Act was filed by the opposite party Nos. 5 to 10. The petitioner is said to be the real sister of the opposite party Nos. 5 to 7. At the time of filing of the said appeal, she was not impleaded as appellant and, in fact, she was made a proforma opposite party. During the pendency of the appeal, cross-objections were filed by the petitioner, however, the learned Court below while considering the said objections came to the conclusion by the impugned order that the said objections have been. filed with the intention to delay the proceedings and has rejected the cross-objection with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.;