D.S.Sinha - (1.) HEARD Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, at length and in detail
(2.) IT appears that during the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, initiated in respect of Premises No. 112/279. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, pending before the V Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, two affidavits of Dr. P. S. Mishra and Dr. R. N. Dwivedi were filed on 21st December, 1983 and 24th September, 1984, respectively, at the behest of the landlord. In answer to the said affidavits, counter affidavits were also filed by the petitioner, the opposite party in the aforesaid proceedings, and, thereafter, landlord filed rejoinder affidavits. After a lapse of a period of more than three years, it struck to the tenant, opposite party in the proceedings, that it was necessary to cross- examine the two doctors on their affidavits. The tenant, therefore, filed an application for summoning the aforesaid doctors for the purposes of their cross-examination The said application was dismissed by the V Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no 1, by means of his order dated 18th November, 1987. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the tenant- petitioner. It cannot be disputed that the nature of the order, impugned in the writ petition, is interlocutory. Normally, this Court is loath in interfering with an interlocutory order, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, unless such an order results in grave miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not result in serious miscarriage of justice to the petitioner for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner did not approach the authority concerned with the request for production of the aforesaid doctors for the purposes of their cross-examination promptly and waited for a period of more than three years. There is every possibility that the tenant-petitioner waited for a period of three years purposely with a view to delay the proceedings Secondly, even if the impugned order is not in conformity with the requirements of law, it would be open to the petitioner to attack it in appeal, in case it causes any prejudice to her.
(3.) FOR the fore-going reasons, the Court is satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference and deserves to be dismissed summarily. It is ordered accordingly. The interim order/orders, if any, shall stand discharged. The court below is directed to conduct the proceedings promptly and in no case later than six months from today. Petition dismissed;