KUMAR KARTIKEYA SHARMA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO.IX, LUCKNOW
LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-8
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on October 01,2013

Kumar Kartikeya Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
Additional District Judge Court No.Ix, Lucknow Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Dr. Manoj Dubey and Shri Arvind Razdan, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri J.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for landlord respondent no.3 Girish Chopra. In this writ petition on 20.9.2013 and 23.9.2013 following orders were passed. "20.9.2013 Dr. Manoj Dubey, learned counsel sought permission of the court at 10.15 A.M. for taking up this case today due to urgency and stated that he would be filing writ petition in the office within few minutes. It was orally directed that the case should be sent by the office today. Office has sent the file at about 4.15 P.M. Learned counsel for petitioner states that he contacted Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who had filed the caveat but he told him that he had left the court premises and instructed him that he could give copy of the writ petition to Sri M.K. Dixit, learned counsel hence he gave the copy to Sri M.K. Dixit. Under High Court Rules even after the court time a Judge sitting in the jurisdiction to which the petition relates may entertain the petition.
(2.) Learned counsel states that after dismissal of the revision (Rent Revision No.10 of 2012) on 17.09.2013 by A.D.J., Court No.9, Lucknow, parvana dakhal was at once issued and a lot of police force has been deployed and at any moment petitioner may be dispossessed. This haste appears to be unusual. Accordingly, put up as fresh on 23.09.2013. Until 23.09.2013, dispossession shall not take place. Learned counsel for petitioner shall inform Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for landlord respondent No.3 about this order on telephone as well as through SMS as the mobile number of the learned counsel for caveator is mentioned in the writ petition itself. 23.09.2013 As per directions given in the morning before lunch when matter was taken up, Sri Vinod Kumar, Additional City Magistrate-I, Lucknow is present. He was called to ascertain the reason for undue haste in delivery of possession.
(3.) Heard Sri Manoj Dubey and Sri Arvind Rajdan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for landlord respondent. Order reserved. Put up for delivery of order on 01.10.2013.;


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