WAQF ALAL AULAD AND ANOTHER Vs. II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, JAUNPUR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1991-4-144
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 26,1991

Waqf Alal Aulad Appellant
VERSUS
Ii Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.S.Sinha, J. - (1.) THE petitioners filed, in the court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur, suit No. 68 of 1978 for ejectment of Smt. Safia Mariam, respondent No. 3 and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the accommodation in dispute. The suit was decreed ex parte on 3rd May, 1985. Respondent No. 3 applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree on 5th May, 1985. She also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,450/ - in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The petitioners objected to the restoration applied for on the ground of alleged non -compliance of Section 17 inasmuch as the deposit made by respondent No. 3 fell short by Rs. 2500/ -. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court allowed respondent No. 3 a week's further time to make the deficiency in the deposit good vide its order dated 28th August, 1985. This order of the trial court was challenged in Revision No. 260 of 1985 which was decided by the II Additional District Judge, Jaunpur. The learned District Judge affirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the revision by means of his judgment and order dated 29th July, 1987. The two orders of the trial court and the revisional court are under challenge in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court has carefully scrutinised the impugned judgment and orders and is clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 3 has rightly allowed further time to make good the deficiency in deposit. The interest of justice required so. The court is, further, of the opinion that the impugned judgment and orders stand to promote justice between the parties and do not result in any manifest injustice to the petitioners, which is a condition precedent for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) FOR the foregoing reasons the court declines to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.