DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. A D J
LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-14
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 10,2004

DWARIKA PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
A.D.J. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DURGA PRASAD V. MATA SARAN AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.C.Misra, J. - (1.)Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 are present. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 3--Munni Lal to oppose the writ petition, though Sri S. M. Dayal, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on his behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3.
(2.)This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 26.8.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 1 and dated 14.8.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 2. Though the petitioner has sought for certain other reliefs in the writ petition, but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the relief No. 1 and pressed the same only.
(3.)The facts of the case in brief-are that the house No. 105/546, Anand Bagh, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar is an ancestral property of the petitioner and the same originally belonged to one Madho Narain who died leaving behind his widow and 8 sons. The contention of the petitioner is that all the sons occupied their portions in the house, in question, and they were living as per their convenience. While the petitioner, one of the sons of the aforesaid Madho Narain, was away, the respondent No. 3--Munni Lal broke open the petitioner's lock and forcibly occupied the possession over three rooms which were in the possession of the petitioner, situated on the first floor of the house, in question. Due to apprehension of breach of peace with regard to possession over the accommodation, in question, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated and the property was attached. The Additional City Magistrate, IInd, Kanpur Nagar, after hearing the parties and considering the entire material on the record released three rooms of the disputed house, in question, in favour of the petitioner vide its order dated 4.6.1984 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The respondent No. 3--Munni Lal, being aggrieved, filed a Criminal Revision No. 174/M/1984 against the said order before the XIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar which was dismissed on 11.9.1984. The respondent No. 3 being aggrieved from dismissal of the said criminal revision, initiated proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which too was finally rejected by this Court. However, the petitioner was given possession over the two rooms out of three rooms in the house, in question, on 10.4.1988.


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