Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35275
Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1388 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh And 5 Others
Respondent :- Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Ambedkar Nagar And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, petitioner No.1 who has appeared in person and also claims to be representing five other petitioners who are his brothers.
2. On being asked as to whether he can represent other petitioners he has filed supplementary affidavit annexing letters of other remaining petitioners stating that they had requested the petitioner to pursue the case on their behalf and they have also ratified power of attorney issued in favour for the petitioner.
3. This Court has also perused the provisions contained under Section 32 of Advocates Act, 1961. According to Section 32 discretion is given to any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular case.
4. It is noticed that the petitioner is appearing for himself and is representing the remaining petitioners who have executed power of attorney in his favour to pursue the present litigation and also ratified the same as per the letters dated 8.4.2024 which have been enclosed in supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 12.4.2024. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court permits the petitioner to prosecute the said petition on his behalf as well as remaining petitioners.
5. By means of the present petition the petitioners have prayed for a direction to Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Ambedkar Nagar to decide the regular suit No.260 of 2014 (Baijnath and others Vs. Rumali Devi and others) within a stipulated time.
6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in 2014 before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar which is pending consideration for last ten years and
1
submitted that the same is being adjourned routinely and, therefore, has remained pending and appropriate direction has been sought from this Court for expeditious disposal of the same.
7. A perusal of the petition further discloses that the petitioners had approached this Court previously by filing petition under Article 227 No.886 of 2023 which has been disposed of by means of order dated 23.2.2023 by the following prayers:-
"Considering submissions advanced by petitioner in person, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar is directed to decide Regular Suit No.260 of 2014 (Baijnath and others versus Rumali Devi and others) expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of the proceedings, without granting any undue adjournment to either parties and in case there is no other legal impediment.
Benefit of this order shall be available only in case petitioner cooperates in early conclusion of the application/trial. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of."
8. A perusal of the aforesaid order makes it abundantly clear that the petitioners had on previous occasion approached this Court seeking the same direction and it is on their behalf that this Court had directed the trial court to decide Regular Suit No.260 of 2014, expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date a copy of the order is brought on record of the proceedings. The petitioner in para 1 has made declaration that he has not filed any other petition regarding the present subject matter or cause of action previously. Clearly, the averments made in para 1 are false and contrary to the record.
9. Considering the fact that the petitioners themselves had approached this Court previously by filing petition under Article 227 No.886 of 2023 for the same cause of action and also considering that false declaration has been deliberately made by the petitioners and also that an order already exists where this Court has interfered in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution directing the trial court to preferably decide the case within one year, no direction as sought by the petitioners can be passed in the present petition. A second petition on the same cause of action is also not maintainable. In light of the above, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/- to be deposited before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar where the trial is proceedings.
2
10. On deposition of the said amount a communication shall be sent to this Court and the said communication may be placed on record of the present petition. The amount when received shall be remitted to library fund of local bar association of District Ambedkar Nagar.
11. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2024
RKM.
3