CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1999) 02 AHC CK 0082

Om Prakash and Another vs Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 20 February 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K.Rathi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14443 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 350 words

B.K. Rathi, J.—This petition under Article 226 Constitution of India has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7297 Annexure3 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1, the Prescribed Authority.

2.

The perusal of the record shows that P.A. case No. 88/94 was filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 against Guru Bux Singh and others. The premises in dispute is house No. 14/New No. 16/2. The applicants in that suit moved an application for impleading them as parties alleging that both of them are in possession of the disputed premises as tenant alongwith their real brother Hansraj. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority on 7297. Therefore, the applicants have come up in this extraordinary jurisdiction.

3.

The applicants had filed the copy of voter list which primafacie shows that the applicants are also living in the disputed house. To avoid further complication, it is necessary that the applicants be impleaded as parties. A perusal of the order of Prescribed Authority shows that their application was rejected only on the ground that, previously the application moved by Jagdish Lal and Amrik Lal, brothers of the petitioners for impleading them and the petitioner as parties, was already rejected. The present application was, therefore, rejected on the ground that previous application for impleadment was rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the previous application moved by Jagdish Lal and Amnk Lal, they were not heard and nor their evidence of possession of the premises was considered.

4.

In order to avoid the delay in the disposal of the release application, I allow this petition at the admission stage and order that the petitioners shall be impleaded as parties in the release application. The petitioners are directed to appear in the Court of the Prescribed Authority on 22399 and also to produce a copy of this order and shall file their written statement also before the Prescribed Authority on that day. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority shall decide the same expeditiously. Petition allowed.