Bhagwat Prasad Shukla vs. The Commissioner Faizabad

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-11-2018 in SA No. 584/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) BHAGWAT PRASAD SHUKLA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, DIVISION FAIZABAD & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.6010/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING Diary No(s). 3037/2019 (XI)

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1173/2019

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.20135/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)

Date : 11-02-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

O.T.) WITH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranja Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Adv. Ms. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Delay condoned.

Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.

Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition essentially on the finding that the writ

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.8 SECTION XI

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

petition filed by the petitioner was abuse of process as multiple petitions were filed by the father of the petitioner (borrower) since year 1992 onwards for the same subject matter and have been rejected.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had already paid the debt amount in excess. That has been specifically averred in the memo of writ petition in paragraph 14 but the same has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Paragraph 14 of the memo of Writ Petition reads thus :-

xxx xxx xxx

14. That pursuant to the direction contained in the interim order dated 11.10.1995, the petitioner deposited Rs.1,60,000/- on 16.10.1995 and further deposited a sum of Rs.8,500/- on being asked by the Tahsildar to do so. In this way in compliance of the interim order dated 11.10.1995, the petitioner deposited a total sum of Rs.1,68,500.00 towards the repayment of loan amount of Rs.46,500/-. Photocopies of the receipts indicting the aforesaid payments are being annexed as Annexure No.3 cumulatively to this writ petition."

xxx xxx xxx

And again in ground (a), it has been stated

as follows:

"(a) Because Learned Commissioner has failed in considering the objection to the effect that prior to confirmation of sale petitioner had deposited entire amount with opposite party No.4 even 5% of the total amount as proposed penal interest for the amount deposited by the auction taker."

It is open to the petitioner to bring this position to the notice of the learned Single Judge by way of review petition, if so advised.

We have no manner of doubt that the grievance of the petitioner will be considered by the learned single Judge appropriately on its own merits in accordance with law.

In the event the review petition is rejected, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision as well as the impugned judgment before this Court.

The special leave petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER

(VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER