Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust Situate At Mohalla – Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. and Ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 347 Of 2001
Decided On : 20-02-2024
ADJOURNMENT - Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. - Section 133 Cr.P.C. - [133 Cr.P.C.] - The court examined the merits of the case after rejecting the request for adjournment. The case involved a revision challenging the validity of an order closing proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The court referred to various legal provisions and interpretations related to Section 133 Cr.P.C. and concluded that there was no imminent danger of the building collapsing, indicating that the revisionist had taken recourse to the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to bypass adjudication of rights in the pending civil proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a revision challenging the validity of an order closing proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The revisionist had filed an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. seeking demolition of a building, but various civil litigation regarding the building were already pending between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the request for adjournment and proceeded to examine the merits of the case. It concluded that there was no imminent danger of the building collapsing, indicating that the revisionist had taken recourse to the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to bypass adjudication of rights in the pending civil proceedings. The court found no illegality in the impugned order declining to continue the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the revision.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the order closing proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and the revisionist's repeated requests for adjournment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 133 Cr.P.C. and the determination that there was no imminent danger of the building collapsing, indicating that the revisionist had used the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to bypass adjudication of rights in the pending civil proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, finding no illegality in the impugned order declining to continue the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
1. The case is a 23 years’ old case listed under the heading ‘These cases shall not be adjourned’ yet a request for adjournment of the case has been made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist by sending a printed slip which does not make a mention of any reason for seeking adjournment.
2. Earlier, the case was last listed on 01.02.2024 and the following order was passed on that date: -
The matter is quite old.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has moved the application for adjournment of the case for the day.
AGA has submitted that approximately 23 years have gone by and the matter might have been frustrated.
A perusal of the record indicates that the parties have taken so many adjournments on different dates.
In view of above, it is directed that on the next date of listing, no further adjournment shall be granted and in absence of any party, the Court may consider to decide the revision on the basis of material available on record.
List this case on 20.2.2024 in top ten listed cases.”
3. In these circumstances the request for adjournment made in a casual manner by merely sending a slip which does not contain any reason for seeking adjournment, is not reasonable and it cannot be accepted.
4. Accordingly, the request for adjournment of the case is turned down and the court proceeds to examine the merits of the case with the help of Smt. Parul Kant, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
5. This is a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. filed on 30.08.2001 challenging the validity of the order dated 06.06.2001,passed by the learned Additional Executive Magistrate, Kheri closing proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
6. The revisionist had filed an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on 07.05.1999 stating that the double storied building in dispute had been constructed more than 125 years prior to filing of the application. The building was in a dilapidated condition, except for three shops situated on the ground floor of the building. A stay order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.2066 (M/S) of 1991 against the declaration of vacancy of the building was continuing. Some other proceedings were also pending before the Rent Control Authority and in the Small Causes Court. By means of the application the revisionist had prayed for demolition of the building. Objections were filed against the application stating that several proceedings were going on regarding the building which was sought to be demolished by the revisionist.
7. The learned Additional Executive Magistrate, Kheri has rejected the application by means of an order dated 06.06.2001 wherein it is stated that a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. regarding the building in dispute was pending. The opposite party had contended that the building was maintained in a proper condition and it was not under threat of falling down. After taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Sukhlal Vs. Brijbasi Lal: 1979 AWC 306, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. could not be continued and accordingly the application was rejected.
8. Section 133 of the Code provides that: -
(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers—
* * *
(d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure or the removal or sup
The proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are meant to ensure removal of nuisance and order demolition of a building causing nuisance in cases of imminent danger to the public. The court's decision w....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and the determination of whether a disputed house poses an imminent danger requiring immediate demolit....
The court established that the exercise of power under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. is justified in cases of imminent danger to public safety, and such powers can be exercised even in the context of pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for eminent danger to the property....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of passing a conditional order for the removal of nuisance under Section 133(1) of the CrPC and the consequences of non-c....
The executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it is, without considering new objections raised in a revision that were not part of the original application.
Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC require evidence of public nuisance; private disputes cannot be adjudicated under this provision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
