- (1.) This Court by order dated 21.10.2011 had required the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions with regard to the alleged disobedience. Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has informed the Court that despite letter having been sent, he has not received any instructions so far from the opposite party No. 1. This application has been filed alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No. 72107 of 2010. The order is quoted hereunder: This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondent No. 1, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur to expedite the proceeding of Small Causes Execution Case No. 1/2006/68 pending in its Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the matter. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No. 1, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur is directed to expedite the proceeding of Small Causes Execution Case No. 1/2006/68 without granting unnecessary adjournment to the either of the side provided there is no legal impediment. With this observation the writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of the order sheet has been annexed to show that no effective orders are being passed by the executing Court resulting into gross and irreparable loss to the applicant and further amounting to non-compliance of the directions issued by the Writ Court which provided that the execution proceedings may be expedited.
(2.) From a perusal of the record it appears that the applicant who is landlord filed small causes suit in the year 1986, for recovery of rent and ejectment against the opposite party No. 2. The said suit was decreed ex parte in the year 2000. Thereafter the revision filed by the tenant was allowed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur by order dated 7.11.2003 and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge Small Causes Court, the Revisional Court directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The landlord petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 51245 of 2003 before this Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.7.2004. This Court remitted the matter to the Revisional Court to decide the question of rate of rent and default after holding that the suit was maintainable before the Judge Small Causes Court and the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Against the said judgment a review application was filed which was apparently not pressed. The Revisional Court thereafter vide judgment and order dated 28.8.2006 dismissed the revision of the tenant. Against the same the opposite party respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 62853 of 2006 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2007.
(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the applicant thereafter the matter was not carried any further and as such the decree for arrears of rent and ejectment became final and executable. The execution proceedings were pending and were being unnecessarily delayed on account of dilatory tactics having been adopted by the tenant judgment debtor. As such the applicant approached this Court for expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings by way of Writ Petition No. 72107 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 13.12.2010 which has been quoted in the earlier part of this order, noncompliance of which has been alleged.;