- (1.) This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: 1. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Basti in Misc. Civil Appeal No.100 of 2012, Ram Saware Vs. Smt. Surja Devi. 2. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the court below-Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Basti to accept the application of Paper No.37Ka-2 and 39-Ga in civil appeal no.100 of 2012, Ram Sware Vs. Surja Devi and another and then to decide the said appeal, within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon. Court. 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet ends of justice. 4. Award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that: That petitioner married with the respondent no.1 according to Hindu rights about 45 years ago. That there was some dispute between petitioner and the respondent no.1 and with malafide ulterior motive the respondent no.1 filed O.S. no.363 of 1998 in the Court of Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Basti, and prayed for maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month vide interim order dated 27.5.2004 and payment of maintenance of Rs.1000/- was fixed. Thereafter the petitioner also filed objections and the said suit is still pending. That in compliance of the interim order dated 27.5.2004 whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- was granted and they were in default in payment of maintenance. The learned munsif attached the property of the petitioner that is initially some small portion of the land. However, upon the direction of the court the entire land of the petitioner was attached and without any information to the petitioner the property of the petitioner was put to auction and without complying the formalities envisaged under Order 24, Rule 54(1-A) C.P.C. or provision under Order 21, Rule 66 C.P.C. the property of the petitioner was sold on 13.9.2009 for merely Rs.1,55,000/- against the recovery of Rs.92,000/-. When this auction was taken place without the knowledge of the petitioner, an application supported with affidavit for cancellation of said auction sale was moved by the petitioner. Against that application both the respondents no.1 and 2 filed objections. The learned Civil Judge without application of mind rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 19 C.P.C. vide order dated 6.5.2010.
(3.) The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2010 preferred the miscellaneous appeal no.120 of 2010 which was after admission numbered as miscellaneous civil appeal no.100 of 2012 before the Court of District Judge, Basti. That during pendency of the aforesaid miscellaneous appeal the petitioner filed an application on 16.9.2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for adding legal and constitutional pleas in the memorandum of appeal. Against the said application only auction purchaser respondent no.2 filed objections.;