REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20915 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.27765 of 2010] Smt. Syed Sugara Zaidi …Appellant Versus Laeeq Ahmad (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. ....Respondents J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Revision Petition No.543 of 1989 dismissing the revision petition filed by the original plaintiff/landlord thereby affirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing the ejectment suit of the plaintiff/landlord. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the suit property No.37(old), 17 and 18 (new numbers) situated at Beli Bazar, Meerut was let out by the original plaintiff/landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) to the original Page No. 1 of 12
defendants (Abdul Qayuum and Hazi Anvaruul Haq) by way of registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years at the rent of Rs.750/- per month. There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate registered agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent from Rs.750/- to Rs.800/- per month. After expiry of the original term of lease, landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) filed ejectment suit in SCC Suit No. 2 of 1981 for eviction of defendants/tenants inter alia on the pleas:- (i) that the period of lease has expired; the defendants/tenants have failed to get the fresh lease deed executed at the enhanced rent of Rs.800/- per month; (ii) the defendants/tenants have put up construction of shops in the suit premises and let out the same to third party in violation of the terms of the rent agreement; and (iii) default in payment of rent and municipal tax by the defendants. 4. Respondents-tenants contested the suit stating that they have taken every possible step to get the lease deed renewed for a further period of five years and also sent the rent @ Rs.800/- per month as per the terms of the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 to the original plaintiff who refused to receive the same. The tenants further pleaded Page No. 2 of 12
that the entire arrears of rent, damages along with interest etc. have been deposited in the court under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'U.P. Act 13 of 1972') and the suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial court framed eleven issues and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff/landlord has not been able to establish any of the grounds for eviction specified under Section 20 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Insofar as the issue of construction by defendants/tenants allegedly in violation of terms of rent agreement was concerned, the trial court held that the construction was in consonance with the terms of the rent agreement and there was nothing in the rent agreement which restricted the right of defendants/tenants to raise construction in the premises. So far as non-renewal of the rent agreement is concerned, the trial court held that there was reluctance on the part of the plaintiff/landlord to renew the rent agreement. The trial court further held that there was no default in payment of rent and the tenants continued paying the rent even after lapse of lease period at the enhanced rate of rent. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/landlord Page No. 3 of 12
approached the High Court by way of revision and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 6. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 was for a fixed period of ten years and it can further be extended for five years on executing fresh deed and since the defendants-tenants failed to get any fresh deed executed, their continuance in possession had become illegal after service of legal notice for eviction. It was further contended that the courts below failed to appreciate that the respondents defaulted many times in payment of rent and payment of house tax to municipality and even on the plea under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the tenants defaulted in regularly depositing the admitted amount and therefore, the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted. 7. Reiterating the findings of the High Court and the trial court, the learned counsel for respondents-tenants submitted that the courts below recorded concurrent findings that every possible step was taken by the respondents-tenants and it was the plaintiff-landlord who Page No. 4 of 12
failed to renew the rent agreement and the concurrent findings so recorded cannot be interfered with. 8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on record, the question falling for consideration is whether after expiry of the lease period and the determination of the tenancy whether the respondents-tenants can continue in possession of the suit property, when the lease was not renewed? 9. The suit property was let out to the respondents-tenants by a registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years on rent @ Rs.750/- per month. There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate rent agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent from Rs. 750/- to Rs.800/- per month. The lease was not renewed and thereafter the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants on 09.04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the suit property on account of determination of lease due to efflux of time. 10. The trial court was of the view that there was no violation of the terms of the lease deed as they had put in sufficient efforts in getting Page No. 5 of 12
the rent agreement renewed. For arriving at such conclusion, the trial court and the High Court placed reliance upon Ex. A-18 (13.06.1978) a notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff's advocate Gulzar Mohd. intimating the tenants that they are willing to renew the lease as per the terms of the rent agreement provided the tenants pay enhanced rent @ Rs.800/- per month. This piece of evidence was categorically denied by the landlord. The trial court did not keep in view the denial of the appellant-landlord regarding issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978). In the light of denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice, it was necessary to adduce evidence to prove that Ex. A-18 notice was actually issued on instructions by the landlord. The burden was upon the respondents-tenants to prove that the said notice was issued by advocate Gulzar Mohd. on the instructions of the landlord. The trial court pointed out that the respondents-tenants had taken steps to examine the said advocate; but he had not appeared before the court. From the materials on record, it is not known as to what steps were taken by the tenants to examine the said advocate Gulzar Mohd. The trial court, in our view, could have very well exercised its power under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC and summoned the said advocate as witness. In the absence of examination of the said advocate Gulzar Page No. 6 of 12
Mohd., the trial court ought not to have placed reliance upon Ex. A-18 notice alleged to have been issued on the instructions of the landlord. 11. Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978) is said to have been issued on the instructions of the landlord. As pointed out earlier, the landlord issued eviction notice on 09.04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the premises. If really Ex. A-18 notice dated 13.06.1978 was issued at the instance of the landlord offering to renew the lease, there was no requirement of issuance of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 calling upon the respondents-tenants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. The courts below erred in ignoring landlord's denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978) and non-examination of advocate Gulzar Mohd. The High Court was not right in holding that the respondents-tenants have taken steps to get renewal of rent agreement and there was reluctance only on the part of the landlord. Be it noted, the tenants have not approached the court to get renewal of lease agreement beyond 12.08.1978. 12. As pointed out earlier, on 09.04.1979, the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants seeking vacant possession of the Page No. 7 of 12
demised premises on account of determination of lease due to efflux of time. After lapse of lease period, if a lessee continues in possession of the demised premises in absence of an assent by lessor, then he is a tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to be sued for ejectment at any time without any prior notice or demand of possession. 13. The term in the lease agreement for renewal of lease deed does not ipso facto extend the tenure or term of the lease. So far as the clause for renewal in the lease deed is concerned, it was held in Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish (1973) 2 SCC 825 that such covenant only entitled a lessee to obtain a fresh lease in accordance with and in due satisfaction of the law governing the making of leases. In the absence of renewal of rent agreement, in our considered view, the possession of the respondents-tenants in the demised premises has become unlawful and they are liable to be evicted. 14. Yet another ground for eviction is construction of shops in the suit premises by the tenants and sub-letting the same in violation of terms of rent agreement. Though, there is a clause in the rent Page No. 8 of 12
agreement enabling the tenants to put up construction, there is no clause in the lease agreement permitting the tenants to transfer his interest of tenancy to third party. It is the case of the appellant that in violation of the rent agreement, Anwar Ul Haq who was one of the original tenants, transferred his interest of tenancy in favour of third respondent Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman. The appellant-landlord specifically denied that such transfer of interest in the tenancy was with the consent of the original landlord. On the other hand, the respondents-tenants in support of their claim submitted that such transfer of interest in tenancy had taken place with the consent and knowledge of the original landlord, relied upon Exs. A1 to A7 which are the receipts said to have been signed by the original landlord issuing to Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman as one of the tenants. In view of specific denial by the appellant-landlord that they have permitted such transfer of interest, the receipts Exs. A1 to A7 ought to have been proved by adducing evidence. The respondents-tenants, though relied upon the said documents, had not taken steps to prove those documents. 15. On those issues, the courts below recorded findings that the rent agreement nowhere prohibited any of the tenants from Page No. 9 of 12
transferring their interest in tenancy and therefore, there was no violation of any of the terms of the rent agreement. In noting so, the trial court lost sight of the fact that in the rent agreement, parties specifically incorporated clause (9), permitting sub-letting by tenants. Had the parties agreed to create or transfer of interest in the tenancy in favour of third party, they would have added a specific term in that regard in the rent agreement. Though, sub-letting of the premises for commercial purpose was agreed to by the original parties, transfer of interest in tenancy leading to creation of third party interest in the suit property could not have been done in the absence of a specific term in the rent agreement. Thus, the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of violation of terms of rent agreement by transfer of interest in tenancy to respondent No. 3 - Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman. 16. So far as the default in payment of rent and the deposit arrears of rent by the defendants and whether the respondents are entitled to the benefits of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the courts below recorded concurrent findings that Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 has been complied with. According to the appellant-landlord, the respondents have failed to regularly deposit Page No. 10 of 12
the rent in the trial court and there was no compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Since we have held that the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of non-renewal of rent agreement and determination of tenancy and transfer of tenancy right in violation of terms of rent agreement, we are not proposed to go into the ground of default in payment of rent and compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. 17. The courts below did not properly appreciate that after service of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 continuance of respondents' possession in the demised premises had become illegal. The High Court did not appreciate that the respondents have sub-let the property to third party and are earning huge profits by simply paying a meager rent of Rs.800/- per month. The respondents-tenants cannot squat on the property and make a profit for themselves at the cost of the appellant-landlord and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. 18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents-tenants and the sub-tenants inducted by them and any other person claiming through them are Page No. 11 of 12
directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within a period of one year from today, failing which the respondents-tenants and their sub-tenants or other persons claiming through them shall be liable for contempt of Court in addition to other proceedings. No order as to costs. …….…………...………J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] …………….……………J. [R. BANUMATHI] New Delhi; December 06, 2017 Page No. 12 of 12
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20915 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.27765 of 2010] Smt. Syed Sugara Zaidi …Appellant Versus Laeeq Ahmad (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. ....Respondents J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Revision Petition No.543 of 1989 dismissing the revision petition filed by the original plaintiff/landlord thereby affirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing the ejectment suit of the plaintiff/landlord. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the suit property No.37(old), 17 and 18 (new numbers) situated at Beli Bazar, Meerut was let out by the original plaintiff/landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) to the original Page No. 1 of 13
defendants (Abdul Qayuum and Hazi Anvaruul Haq) by way of registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years at the rent of Rs.750/- per month. There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate registered agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent from Rs.750/- to Rs.800/- per month. After expiry of the original term of lease, landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) filed ejectment suit in SCC Suit No. 2 of 1981 for eviction of defendants/tenants inter alia on the pleas:- (i) that the period of lease has expired; the defendants/tenants have failed to get the fresh lease deed executed at the enhanced rent of Rs.800/- per month; (ii) the defendants/tenants have put up construction of shops in the suit premises and let out the same to third party in violation of the terms of the rent agreement; and (iii) default in payment of rent and municipal tax by the defendants. 4. Respondents-tenants contested the suit stating that they have taken every possible step to get the lease deed renewed for a further period of five years and also sent the rent @ Rs.800/- per month as per the terms of the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 to the original plaintiff who refused to receive the same. The tenants further pleaded Page No. 2 of 13
that the entire arrears of rent, damages along with interest etc. have been deposited in the court under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'U.P. Act 13 of 1972') and the suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial court framed eleven issues and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff/landlord has not been able to establish any of the grounds for eviction specified under Section 20 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Insofar as the issue of construction by defendants/tenants allegedly in violation of terms of rent agreement was concerned, the trial court held that the construction was in consonance with the terms of the rent agreement and there was nothing in the rent agreement which restricted the right of defendants/tenants to raise construction in the premises. So far as non-renewal of the rent agreement is concerned, the trial court held that there was reluctance on the part of the plaintiff/landlord to renew the rent agreement. The trial court further held that there was no default in payment of rent and the tenants continued paying the rent even after lapse of lease period at the enhanced rate of rent. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/landlord Page No. 3 of 13
approached the High Court by way of revision and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 6. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 was for a fixed period of ten years and it can further be extended for five years on executing fresh deed and since the defendants-tenants failed to get any fresh deed executed, their continuance in possession had become illegal after service of legal notice for eviction. It was further contended that the courts below failed to appreciate that the respondents defaulted many times in payment of rent and payment of house tax to municipality and even on the plea under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the tenants defaulted in regularly depositing the admitted amount and therefore, the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted. 7. Reiterating the findings of the High Court and the trial court, the learned counsel for respondents-tenants submitted that the courts below recorded concurrent findings that every possible step was taken by the respondents-tenants and it was the plaintiff-landlord who Page No. 4 of 13
failed to renew the rent agreement and the concurrent findings so recorded cannot be interfered with. 8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on record, the question falling for consideration is whether after expiry of the lease period and the determination of the tenancy whether the respondents-tenants can continue in possession of the suit property, when the lease was not renewed? 9. The suit property was let out to the respondents-tenants by a registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years on rent @ Rs.750/- per month. There was a specific term in the rent agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate rent agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent from Rs. 750/- to Rs.800/- per month. The lease was not renewed and thereafter the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants on 09.04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the suit property on account of determination of lease due to efflux of time. 10. The trial court was of the view that there was no violation of the terms of the lease deed as they had put in sufficient efforts in getting Page No. 5 of 13
the rent agreement renewed. For arriving at such conclusion, the trial court and the High Court placed reliance upon Ex. A-18 (13.06.1978) a notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff's advocate Gulzar Mohd. intimating the tenants that they are willing to renew the lease as per the terms of the rent agreement provided the tenants pay enhanced rent @ Rs.800/- per month. This piece of evidence was categorically denied by the landlord. The trial court did not keep in view the denial of the appellant-landlord regarding issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978). In the light of denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice, it was necessary to adduce evidence to prove that Ex. A-18 notice was actually issued on instructions by the landlord. The burden was upon the respondents-tenants to prove that the said notice was issued by advocate Gulzar Mohd. on the instructions of the landlord. The trial court pointed out that the respondents-tenants had taken steps to examine the said advocate; but he had not appeared before the court. From the materials on record, it is not known as to what steps were taken by the tenants to examine the said advocate Gulzar Mohd. The trial court, in our view, could have very well exercised its power under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC and summoned the said advocate as witness. In the absence of examination of the said advocate Gulzar Page No. 6 of 13
Mohd., the trial court ought not to have placed reliance upon Ex. A-18 notice alleged to have been issued on the instructions of the landlord. 11. Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978) is said to have been issued on the instructions of the landlord. As pointed out earlier, the landlord issued eviction notice on 09.04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the premises. If really Ex. A-18 notice dated 13.06.1978 was issued at the instance of the landlord offering to renew the lease, there was no requirement of issuance of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 calling upon the respondents-tenants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. The courts below erred in ignoring landlord's denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978) and non-examination of advocate Gulzar Mohd. The High Court was not right in holding that the respondents-tenants have taken steps to get renewal of rent agreement and there was reluctance only on the part of the landlord. Be it noted, the tenants have not approached the court to get renewal of lease agreement beyond 12.08.1978. 12. As pointed out earlier, on 09.04.1979, the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants seeking vacant possession of the Page No. 7 of 13
demised premises on account of determination of lease due to efflux of time. After lapse of lease period, if a lessee continues in possession of the demised premises in absence of an assent by lessor, then he is a tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to be sued for ejectment at any time without any prior notice or demand of possession. 13. The term in the lease agreement for renewal of lease deed does not ipso facto extend the tenure or term of the lease. So far as the clause for renewal in the lease deed is concerned, it was held in Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish (1973) 2 SCC 825 that such covenant only entitled a lessee to obtain a fresh lease in accordance with and in due satisfaction of the law governing the making of leases. In the absence of renewal of rent agreement, in our considered view, the possession of the respondents-tenants in the demised premises has become unlawful and they are liable to be evicted. 14. Yet another ground for eviction is construction of shops in the suit premises by the tenants and sub-letting the same in violation of terms of rent agreement. Though, there is a clause in the rent Page No. 8 of 13
agreement enabling the tenants to put up construction, there is no clause in the lease agreement permitting the tenants to transfer his interest of tenancy to third party. It is the case of the appellant that in violation of the rent agreement, Anwar Ul Haq who was one of the original tenants, transferred his interest of tenancy in favour of third respondent Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman. The appellant-landlord specifically denied that such transfer of interest in the tenancy was with the consent of the original landlord. On the other hand, the respondents-tenants in support of their claim submitted that such transfer of interest in tenancy had taken place with the consent and knowledge of the original landlord, relied upon Exs. A1 to A7 which are the receipts said to have been signed by the original landlord issuing to Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman as one of the tenants. In view of specific denial by the appellant-landlord that they have permitted such transfer of interest, the receipts Exs. A1 to A7 ought to have been proved by adducing evidence. The respondents-tenants, though relied upon the said documents, had not taken steps to prove those documents. 15. On those issues, the courts below recorded findings that the rent agreement nowhere prohibited any of the tenants from Page No. 9 of 13
transferring their interest in tenancy and therefore, there was no violation of any of the terms of the rent agreement. In noting so, the trial court lost sight of the fact that in the rent agreement, parties specifically incorporated clause (9), permitting sub-letting by tenants. Had the parties agreed to create or transfer of interest in the tenancy in favour of third party, they would have added a specific term in that regard in the rent agreement. Though, sub-letting of the premises for commercial purpose was agreed to by the original parties, transfer of interest in tenancy leading to creation of third party interest in the suit property could not have been done in the absence of a specific term in the rent agreement. Thus, the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of violation of terms of rent agreement by transfer of interest in tenancy to respondent No. 3 - Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman. 16. So far as the default in payment of rent and the deposit arrears of rent by the defendants and whether the respondents are entitled to the benefits of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the courts below recorded concurrent findings that Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 has been complied with. According to the appellant-landlord, the respondents have failed to regularly deposit Page No. 10 of 13
the rent in the trial court and there was no compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Since we have held that the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of non-renewal of rent agreement and determination of tenancy and transfer of tenancy right in violation of terms of rent agreement, we are not proposed to go into the ground of default in payment of rent and compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. 17. The courts below did not properly appreciate that after service of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 continuance of respondents' possession in the demised premises had become illegal. The High Court did not appreciate that the respondents have sub-let the property to third party and are earning huge profits by simply paying a meager rent of Rs.800/- per month. The respondents-tenants cannot squat on the property and make a profit for themselves at the cost of the appellant-landlord and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. 18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The respondents-tenants and the sub-tenants inducted by them and any other person claiming through them are Page No. 11 of 13
directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within a period of one year from today, failing which the respondents-tenants and their sub-tenants or other persons claiming through them shall be liable for contempt of Court in addition to other proceedings. No order as to costs. …….…………...………J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] …………….……………J. [R. BANUMATHI] New Delhi; December 06, 2017 Page No. 12 of 13
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 06-12-2017 This petition was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna, Adv. For Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, Adv. Mr. Seema Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER (Signed judgment is placed on the file.) Page No. 13 of 13
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 16-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI Counsel for the parties Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Ramkrishna, Adv. Mr. Soumo Palit, Adv. Mr. Prithviraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Stuti N. Karnwal, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Ms. Seema Singh, Adv. Mr. Adnan, Adv. Mr. B. D. Jha, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Ms. Preeti Jha, Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Arguments concluded. Order/Judgment reserved and will be pronounced on 24.11.2017. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 10-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena,Adv. Mr. D. Ramkrishna,Adv. For Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Ms. Seema Singh,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. V. Shekhar and Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, learned senior counsel submit that at least by the circle rate at the locality the value of the property is around 3.5 Crores each, three years back and, therefore, it should have a reasonable increase at this point of time. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/tenant 1
submits that since they are seriously interested in purchasing the property, they will make a reasonable offer, in case the matter is posted after two weeks, since the incumbent/tenant is indisposed and is hospitalized. List on 16.11.2017. We make it clear that there shall be no further adjournment as far as making for offer and in case the offer so made is not otherwise found reasonable or acceptable to the landlords, the matter will be heard on merits on that day. The amount deposited in the Registry of this Court shall be kept in a fixed deposit account, initially for a period of three months and shall be renewed periodically thereafter. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASST. REGISTRAR 2
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ON IA 8/2015 and IA No.70547/2017-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.70549/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.70550/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.98426/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS[FOR FINAL DISPOSAL]) Date : 05-10-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Seema Singh, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR (Not Present) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 10.10.2017. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) (APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.70549/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.70550/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.98426/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) Date : 04-10-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Seema Singh, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R From the proposals made at the Bar, it appears that there is no possibility of an amicable settlement. Post tomorrow i.e. on 05.10.2017 for final disposal. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1 REVISED ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ON IA 8/2015- Application for impleadment and IA No.70547/2017-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.70549/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.70550/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 10-08-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena,Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Ms. Sadiya Shakeel,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, submits that respondent no.3 is interested to outrightly purchase the tenanted premises. It is also submitted that the rent could not be paid from the year 1992 on
2 account of inter se dispute among landlords. If that be so, the respondent no.3 will deposit the arrears of rent from 1992 till today before this Court within a period of six weeks from today. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who is in occupation of the premises, will also make his offer to learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the purchase price at which the respondent intends to purchase the said premises. We request both counsel to explore possibility of arriving at a price which is mutually acceptable. We make it clear that if the arrears of rent, as directed above, is not paid within six weeks from today, the second suggestion, i.e. “(ii) They may vacate the premises within a reasonable period”, made before this Court and which was recorded in our order dated 19 th July, 2017, will be worked out. Application for impleadment is allowed. Abatement is set aside. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned. Substitution is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly. Post on Wednesday, the 4 th October, 2017. (MAHABIR SINGH) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
3 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ON IA 8/2015 and IA No.70547/2017-APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION and IA No.70549/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION APPLN. and IA No.70550/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 10-08-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena,Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna,Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, AOR Ms. Sadiya Shakeel,Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, submits that respondent no.3 is interested to outrightly purchase the tenanted premises. It is also
4 submitted that the rent could not be paid from the year 1992 on account of inter se dispute among landlords. If that be so, the respondent no.3 will deposit the arrears of rent from 1992 till today before this Court within a period of six weeks from today. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who is in occupation of the premises, will also make his offer to learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the purchase price at which the respondent intends to purchase the said premises. We request both counsel to explore possibility of arriving at a price which is mutually acceptable. We make it clear that if the arrears of rent, as directed above, is not paid within six weeks from today, the second suggestion, i.e. “(ii) They may vacate the premises within a reasonable period”, made before this Court and which was recorded in our order dated 19 th July, 2017, will be worked out. Abatement is set aside. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned. Substitution is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly. Post on Wednesday, the 4 th October, 2017. (MAHABIR SINGH) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 19-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. Ms. Seema Kashyap, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made the following submission on proper instruction: - The lease, which was originally for a period of 10 years, expired as far back as in the year 1978 and, therefore, there has been no renewal, nor is there any payment on the basis of the enhancement, as contemplated under the original lease deed. In that background, it is submitted that the landlord has three offers to make :-
2 (i) The respondent may buy out the property at the prevailing market rate; ii) They may vacate the premises within a reasonable period. iii) The above terms could work out only on condition that the respondents clear the entire arrears of rent. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, who is in occupation of the premises, seeks some time to get instruction. Post on 10.08.2017. We make it clear that there will be no further adjournment on any ground. Needless to say that these submissions are made without prejudice to the contentions available to the petitioner. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-10-2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. Ms. Seema Kashyap, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to get current instruction. List on 19.07.2017. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITEM NO.3 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for correction of typographical error. and impleadment and substituted service) Date : 27/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms Shweta Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for respondent nos. 1(i) to 1(ix), 4(i) to 4(v) and 5 despite due service. Opportunity to respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Registry to process the matter for being listed before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.3 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for correction of typographical error. and impleadment and substituted service)Date : 27/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms Shweta Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RNone appears for respondent nos. 1(i) to 1(ix), 4(i) to4(v) and 5 despite due service.Opportunity to respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to filecounter affidavit has already been declined.Registry to process the matter for being listed beforethe Hon'ble Court as per rules. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.5 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment and substituted service) Date : 14/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh application for substituted service of respondent no.1(ii) is allowed. Notice be accordingly issued. Affidavit alongwith proof of publication be filed within three weeks time. List again on 27.1.2017. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.5 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for impleadment and substituted service)Date : 14/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFresh application for substituted service of respondentno.1(ii) is allowed. Notice be accordingly issued. Affidavitalongwith proof of publication be filed within three weekstime.List again on 27.1.2017. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.3 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 21/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for substituted service for respondent no.1(ii) is allowed. Registry to issue notice in terms of the application forthwith. None appears for respondent nos.1(i), 1(iii) to 1(ix), 4(i) to 4(v) and respondent no.5 despite due service. Opportunity to respondent nos.2,3 and 6 to 9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. List again on 14.12.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
.ITEM NO.3 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for impleadment)Date : 21/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RApplication for substituted service for respondentno.1(ii) is allowed. Registry to issue notice in terms of theapplication forthwith.None appears for respondent nos.1(i), 1(iii) to 1(ix),4(i) to 4(v) and respondent no.5 despite due service.Opportunity to respondent nos.2,3 and 6 to 9 to filecounter affidavit has already been declined.List again on 14.12.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.6 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 20/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps to effect service on respondent No.1(ii) within two weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. However, the ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application for substituted service of respondent no.1(ii). Registry to verify and if filed, process under rules. Opportunity to respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. None appears for respondent nos. 1(i), 1(iii) to 1(ix), 4(i) to 4(v) and respondent no.5 despite due service. List again on 21.10.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
öITEM NO.6 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for impleadment)Date : 20/09/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLd. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps toeffect service on respondent No.1(ii) within two weeks time.Notice thereafter be issued. However, the ld. Counselappearing for the petitioner submits that he has filed anapplication for substituted service of respondent no.1(ii).Registry to verify and if filed, process under rules.Opportunity to respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to filecounter affidavit has already been declined.None appears for respondent nos. 1(i), 1(iii) to 1(ix),4(i) to 4(v) and respondent no.5 despite due service.List again on 21.10.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.5 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 02/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Opportunity to respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Await service of respondent no.1(ii). None appears for respondent nos. 1(i), 1(iii) to 1(ix), 4(i) to 4(v) and respondent no.5 despite due service. List again on 20.9.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
BITEM NO.5 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for impleadment)Date : 02/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr Ram Krishna, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E ROpportunity to respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to filecounter affidavit has already been declined.Await service of respondent no.1(ii).None appears for respondent nos. 1(i), 1(iii) to 1(ix),4(i) to 4(v) and respondent no.5 despite due service.List again on 20.9.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 21/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for Respondent No.1(i), 1(iii-ix), 4(i-v) and Respondent No.5 despite due service. Opportunity to Respondent No.2, 3, 6-9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Last opportunity for filing spare copies along with fresh address of Respondent No.1(2) within two weeks time and notice thereafter be issued. List again on 2.8.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
È ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 21/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for Respondent No.1(i), 1(iii-ix), 4(i-v) and Respondent No.5 despite due service. Opportunity to Respondent No.2, 3, 6-9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Last opportunity for filing spare copies along with fresh address of Respondent No.1(2) within two weeks time and notice thereafter be issued.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2016.04.23 List again on 2.8.2016.12:04:22 ISTReason: (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.6 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 04/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. Mohd. Naved Mian, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Shruti Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Fresh address of respondent no.1(ii) be filed within three weeks' time. Notice thereafter be issued. Despite last opportunity, none appears for legal representative of deceased respondent no.1(i), 1(iii-ix), 4(i-v) and respondent no. 5. List again on 21.04.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
˜ITEM NO.6 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWALPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for impleadment)Date : 04/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.Mohd. Naved Mian, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Shruti Jain, Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFresh address of respondent no.1(ii) be filed within threeweeks' time. Notice thereafter be issued. Despite last opportunity, none appears for legalrepresentative of deceased respondent no.1(i), 1(iii-ix), 4(i-v)and respondent no. 5. List again on 21.04.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 8/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989,09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (For Impleadment) Date : 04/01/2016 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.(NP) For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Applicant Mr. Mayank Aggarwal,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, four weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit, if any. (Madhu Bala) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty) Court Master Court Master
l ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 8/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989,09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (For Impleadment) Date : 04/01/2016 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.(NP) For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Applicant Mr. Mayank Aggarwal,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, four weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit, if any. (Madhu Bala) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2016.01.0511:28:28 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 8/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989,09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (for impleadment) Date : 30/11/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansode, Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. Mr. Rattan Lal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the request of learned counsel, list after two weeks. (RASHMI DHYANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) SR.P.A. COURT MASTER
ITEM NO.4 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 18/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Opportunity for respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1(ii) have not been served for want of spare copies of the petition. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to provide the same within two weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. Service upon proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1(i),1(iii-ix), 4(i-v) and respondent No.5 is complete but none has entered appearance. List again on 4.2.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar
Î ITEM NO.4 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment) Date : 18/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Opportunity for respondent nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9 to file counter affidavit has already been declined. Proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1(ii) have not been served for want of spare copies of the petition. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to provide the same within two weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. Service upon proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1(i),1(iii-ix), 4(i-v) and respondent No.5 is complete but none has entered appearance. List again on 4.2.2016.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.11.1817:02:31 ISTReason: (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 8/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (For impleadment) Date : 02/11/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Syed Rehan, Adv. Mr. Noshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the applicant is absent, however, list the application after two weeks. (ASHIMA CHHABRA) SR. P.A. (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER
ö ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 8/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (For impleadment) Date : 02/11/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Syed Rehan, Adv. Mr. Noshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajit Sharma,Adv. Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the applicant is absent, however, list the application after two weeks. (ASHIMA CHHABRA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) SR. P.A. COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byNeeta SapraDate: 2015.11.0317:09:51 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.7 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for substitution) Date : 01/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service upon the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 4 is complete except for legal representative No.2 of deceased respondent no.1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps within four weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. Respondent nos. 2,3,6 to 9 have not filed counter affidavit. Perusal shows that their vakalatnama has been filed in January, 2011 itself. Hence time stipulated for their counter affidavit stands expired. Their opportunity therefore stands declined. Service of respondent no.5 is complete but none has entered appearance. List again on 18.11.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar
þ ITEM NO.7 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27765/2010 SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUS LAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for substitution) Date : 01/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service upon the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 4 is complete except for legal representative No.2 of deceased respondent no.1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to take fresh steps within four weeks time. Notice thereafter be issued. Respondent nos. 2,3,6 to 9 have not filed counter affidavit. Perusal shows that their vakalatnama has been filed in January, 2011 itself. Hence time stipulated for their counter affidavit stands expired. Their opportunity therefore stands declined. Service of respondent no.5 is complete but none has entered appearance.Signature Not Verified List again on 18.11.2015.Digitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.09.0416:46:28 ISTReason: (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar
HITEM NO.17 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No.543/1989 of theHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(Office Report on default)Date: 20/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH (In Chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.(N.P.)For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv.(N.P.) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are allowed. Issue notice on I.A. No.3, returnable in six weeks. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER
¢ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.9 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. NO. 3 AND 4 AND 5 AND 6 IN Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No(s).27765/2010(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No.543/1989 of TheHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(For substitution and c/delay in filing substitution application andexemption from filing O.T. and c/delay in curing defects)Date: 16/09/2013 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA (In chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, adv. Mr. Naseem Anwar, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Seema Kashyap, Adv. for Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the office report on default dated 13th September, 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted two weeks time to file the affidavit of service with proof of service. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master
xITEM NO.53 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010(From the judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No.543/1989 of TheHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(WITH OFFICE REPORT)Date: 09/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan,Adv. For Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite last opportunity having been granted, defects in the application for substitution has not been cured. One more opportunity of four weeks' is granted to the petitioner subject to the cost of Rs.500/- with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Cost be deposited within three weeks.| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(USHA SHARMA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |
öITEM NO.30 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTIONS)Date: 22/01/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan,Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. Mr. Naseem Anwar,Adv. Mr. Rashid Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R By way of last opportunity, six weeks' time is granted to the counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects in the application for substitution.| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(S.S.R.KRISHNA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |
ìITEM NO.12 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 09/07/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Nobody is present. List before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers forabatement against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are reported tobe no more. (S.G.SHAH) REGISTRARhj
ÆITEM NO.25 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No.543/1989of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 17/04/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr.Naushad Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr.Mehbubul Hassan Laskar, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the office report on default. Dasti notice has been served upon respondent Nos.3, 5, 6,7 and 8. Therefore, service be treated as complete upon theserespondents. Respondent Nos.2 and 9 have refused to accept thenotice. Service be treated as complete upon these respondentsalso. Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed fourweeks' time to bring on record the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1and 4. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.50 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 22/07/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Nobody is present. As last chance, outcome of dasti to be filed before5.9.2011. If not filed, list before the Hon'ble Judge inChamber for non-prosecution. (S.G.SHAH) Registrarhj
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.11 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).27765/2010(From the judgment and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No.543/1989 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(Office Report on Default)Date: 25/02/2011 This Petition was called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI (In-Chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, Adv. Mr. Javed Hussain Khan, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Two weeks' time is allowed to the petitioner to complywith office report dated 21.01.2011 failing which the SpecialLeave Petition shall stand automatically dismissed. (Geeta Ahuja) (Veena Khera) Sr. P.A. Court Master
üITEM NO.71 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.K. HANJURAPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 13/01/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Deleted. (M.K.HANJURA) Registrarhj
˜ITEM NO.94 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27765/2010SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)Date: 12/11/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue fresh notice upon the unserved respondents. Dasti service upon the unserved respondents isallowed, permitted to be served through nearest civil court ortrial court. Process fee and spare copies are to be filed before23.11.2010. If not filed before 23.11.2010, list before theHon'ble Judge in Chambers for non-prosecution. If filed before 23.11.2010, issue notice as perabove order and list the matter before this court again on13.1.2011. (S.G. SHAH) REGISTRARrd
¼ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2010 CC 13664/2010(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No. 543/1989of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(With I.A. No.1 -appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay inrefiling SLP)Date: 24/09/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. (Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna) Sr. P.A. Court Master
\206ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2010 CC 13664/2010(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2009 in RP No.543/1989 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)SYED SUGARA ZAIDI Petitioner(s) VERSUSLAEEQ AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLPDate: 10/09/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Adv. For Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R There is a letter circulated by the counsel for the petitioner praying for adjournment. Adjourned for two weeks. (Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna) Sr. P.A. Court Master