# of 2005- Ganga Prasad Vs. M/s Hanif Opticians & others

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 6/
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 2006-02-15
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 6/
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/of-2005-ganga-prasad-vs-m-s-hanif-opticians-others-163280
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

214
directions in the judgment referred to herein above and make sure obedience in epistle
and force.
(xxxii) Judgment and order dated 24.9.2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63114
of 2005- Ganga Prasad Vs. M/s Hanif Opticians & others.
C.L. No. 6/ Admin ̳G' /2006: Dated: 15th February, 2006
While enclosing herewith a copy of judgment and order dated 24.9.2005 in Civil
Misc Wit Petition No. 63114 of 2005 Ganga Prasad Vs. M/s Hanif Opticians & others. I
am desired to say that the Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.U. Khan ) has been
pleased to observe that the tenants enjoying the tenanted property on highly inadequate
rent tend to prolong the disposal of the appeal or revision for continuing their possession
without payment or proper rent/damages for use and occupation. If the stay against
eviction is granted on the condition of monthly payment of reasonable amount this
practice can sufficiently be checked. The Hon'ble Court has therefore directed that in
revisions under section 25 Provincial Small Caused Court Act or appeal under Section 22
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 District Judge or Addl. District Judge while granting stay
order shall impose conditions of payment of reasonable among which may be about 50%
of the Current rent (i.e. rent on which building in dispute may be let out at the time of
grant of stay order. In this regard no detailed inquiry need be made. Mere guesswork
based on common sense may do).
Therefore. You are requested to kindly circulate the said judgment to all the
additional District & Sessions Judge in the Judgeship under your administrative control
for their guidance.
Improvement in administration of Civil Justice System
C. L. No. 41/2006, dated 19-9-2006
With reference to the above subject I am directed to inform you that to shore up
the administration of Civil Justice System in the Chief Justices' Conference, 2006, it has
been resolved that a holistic approach a required to be adopted with stringent
enforcement of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in the matter of service of
process, filing of written statement, use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
methods, imposing of costs, admission/denial of documents, examination of parties,
discovery and inspection of documents, framing of issues, granting of adjournments,
production of witnesses and granting of ex parte injunction/stay orders by all the Judicial
Officers.

Therefore, I am further directed to request you to impress upon all the Judicial
officers working under your supervision and control in the Judgeship to follow the above
directions meticulously.
16.
EXECUTION CASES
G.L. No. 3020/19-O-20 dated 4th September, 1920

Complaint are frequently made of the difficulties encountered by decree-holders
and these complaints are to a large extent justified owing to constant neglect in properly
complying with the directions laid down in Chapter VI of the General Rules (Civil),
1957. The execution clerk appears to be allowed a very free-hand and is commonly
215
reputed to make considerable illicit income out of his post. Whatever his motive, it is
intolerable that the clerk of a court should be in a position to intimidate parties and
pleaders into taking action for which not the remotest necessity exists, and the manifest
object of which is to defeat rules made for the guidance of courts, to say nothing of the
needless vexation and hardship caused both to the decree-holder and the judgmentdebtor.

District Judges should devote special attention to execution cases pending in the
courts directly subordinate to them and take steps to ensure rigid compliance with the
rules. Execution cases should be placed before the presiding judge in open court daily in
the same manner as suits and other causes as they are the most important part of civil
proceedings.
G.L. No. 10/VIII-h-19 dated 12th September, 1951

The file arising out of an execution application should be kept separate and
district from the file arising out of an objection under section 47 or Order XXI, rule 58, of
the Code of Civil Procedure. A separate index and order sheet should be prepared for
every file arising out of an objection as soon as an objection is filed. These files should be
kept separate until the objections are disposed of and should thereafter be stitched to the
main execution file as required by the rules.

If may be said that if the files arising out of such objections are kept separate from
the execution file there is an apprehension of the attached property being sold or the
judgment-debtor being arrested notwithstanding the fact that an objection to such sale or
arrest may not have been disposed of. But there would be no such apprehension if the
files arising out of such objections are kept in charge or the same clerk who deals with
execution files. As further safeguard care must always be taken whenever the execution is
stayed on the filing of an objection to make an entry thereof on the execution file giving
reference to the appropriate file in which such objection is being dealt with.
G.L. No. 1823/35(a)-k(a) dated 7th May, 1915

No application for an order for sale under Order XXI, rule 66(3), of the Code of
Civil Procedure should be entertained unless it is accompanied by a verified statement.

Such statement must be examined to see that the encumbrances are set down so
for as they are known to or can be ascertained by the person making the verification.

In this connection reference is made to rule 165, chapter VI of the General Rules
(Civil), 1957 which lays down that in every case the decree-holder must submit
registration receipt, showing that search has been made at the registration office.

In every case, the decree-holder must make this search at the registration office
and the court should not fall back on the report from the same offices which it calls for
under Order XXI, rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

If a comparison of the statement submitted by the decree- holder and of the report
received from the registration office reveals any discrepancies, the decree-holder should
be called to account. If he states that he did not see an entry or made a wrong note by
accident, the cost of his inspection at the registration office should be disallowed.