# R.D. 313, Rajit Ram Singh and others v. Mahadev Singh and others - **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 488 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-05-19 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24595 of 2010 - **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Subhash Chandra Nigam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-d-313-rajit-ram-singh-and-others-v-mahadev-singh-and-others-41602 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India Art.226- Loan for Housing purpose- default in payment of installments- Home mortgaged put on auction sale but auction could not take place on date fixed-petition willing and ready to deposit entire amount if installments fixed by the court with consent of other Party-direction to deposit entire amount with up to date interest in six installments amount already deposited shall be adjusted- in case of default- liberty given to proceed with recovery proceeding in accordance with law. Held: Para 8 (i) The petitioners may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly with the contesting respondent no.3 (Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Avas Sangh Limited) in six equal quarterly instalments with up-todate interest. (ii) The first instalment may be deposited by 19.8.2010, the second by 19.11.2010, the third by 19.2.2011, the fourth by 19.5.2011, the fifth by 19.8.2011, and the last/sixth by 19.11.2011. Any amount already deposited will be adjusted. (iii) This order will not affect any auction or sale which may already have taken place. (iv) If the petitioners deposit the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance but if the petitioners default in paying any of the instalment, this order shall stand vacated and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. (v) On deposit of all the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery proceedings against the petitioners will be dropped, and the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioners. (vi) This order will not be applicable if the petitioners have filed any earlier writ petition challenging the recovery of this loan. ## Text 488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 decisions as well as logical points I am of the opinion that remand orders would be interlocutory order if they are simplicitor remand orders. However, if the Court remanding the matter has recorded finding of fact or even finding of law which would be finding after remand upon the Court to which matter has been remanded, the remand order would not be interlocutory order, as in respect of those issues it has finally decided the controversy." 30. We are of the view that no such distinction can be drawn for purposes of determining as to whether order of remand is an interlocutory order or not. The definition of interlocutory order as given in Explanation (2) does not contemplate any such distinction. 31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by which appeals were finally decided was not an interlocutory order and the revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was clearly maintainable. Our answers to the questions are as follows:- 1) an order passed in appeal under section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deciding the appeal finally by setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and revision is not barred against such order under section 48. 2) the law down in Ajab Singh and others Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1996 R.D. 104, Rajbir Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, reported in 1999 (90) R.D. 313, Rajit Ram Singh and others Vs. Mahadev Singh and others, reported in 2002 (93) R.D. 224 do not lay down the correct law. 32. After answer to the above two questions nothing more remains to be decided in the writ petition. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13th February, 2008 holding the revision to be maintainable against the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is fully justified. Thus we decide the entire writ petition by this order. 33. The writ petition is dismissed. 34. Parties shall bear their own costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.5.2010 BEFORE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J. HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA NIGAM, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24595 of 2010 Smt. Shakuntala Devi and another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D.D. Kushwaha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Rohit Agrawal C.S.C. 2 All] Smt Shakuntala Devi and another V. State of U.P. and others 489 Constitution of India Art.226- Loan for Housing purpose- default in payment of installments- Home mortgaged put on auction sale but auction could not take place on date fixed-petition willing and ready to deposit entire amount if installments fixed by the court with consent of other Party-direction to deposit entire amount with up to date interest in six installments amount already deposited shall be adjusted- in case of default- liberty given to proceed with recovery proceeding in accordance with law. Held: Para 8 (i) The petitioners may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly with the contesting respondent no.3 (Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Avas Sangh Limited) in six equal quarterly instalments with up-todate interest. (ii) The first instalment may be deposited by 19.8.2010, the second by 19.11.2010, the third by 19.2.2011, the fourth by 19.5.2011, the fifth by 19.8.2011, and the last/sixth by 19.11.2011. Any amount already deposited will be adjusted. (iii) This order will not affect any auction or sale which may already have taken place. (iv) If the petitioners deposit the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance but if the petitioners default in paying any of the instalment, this order shall stand vacated and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. (v) On deposit of all the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery proceedings against the petitioners will be dropped, and the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioners. (vi) This order will not be applicable if the petitioners have filed any earlier writ petition challenging the recovery of this loan. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.) 1. The petitioners had taken loan for housing purposes from the respondent no.3 (Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Avas Sangh Limited). It appears that the petitioners committed default in the payment of intalments, and consequently, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. 2. Sale-Proclamation (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) was issued on 18.3.2010 for auction of the House mortgaged with the respondent no.3 as security for the said loan. The date for auction was fixed as 21.4.2010. 3. Shri Rohit Agrawal has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3. Shri Rohit Agrawal has stated that no auction could take place on 21.4.2010 pursuant to the aforesaid Sale-Proclamation. 4. We have heard Shri D.D.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rohit Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 5. Shri D.D. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready to deposit the entire dues of the respondent no. 3 with up-to-date interest if time to deposit the same in instalments is granted. 6. Shri Rohit Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has no objection to the aforesaid proposal. 490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 7. In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition is disposed of finally with the following directions: 8. (i) The petitioners may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly with the contesting respondent no.3 (Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Avas Sangh Limited) in six equal quarterly instalments with up-to-date interest. (ii) The first instalment may be deposited by 19.8.2010, the second by 19.11.2010, the third by 19.2.2011, the fourth by 19.5.2011, the fifth by 19.8.2011, and the last/sixth by 19.11.2011. Any amount already deposited will be adjusted. (iii) This order will not affect any auction or sale which may already have taken place. (iv) If the petitioners deposit the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance but if the petitioners default in paying any of the instalment, this order shall stand vacated and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. (v) On deposit of all the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery proceedings against the petitioners will be dropped, and the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioners. (vi) This order will not be applicable if the petitioners have filed any earlier writ petition challenging the recovery of this loan. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J. THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 25378 of 2009 Imran and others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mir Sayed Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Sri Shahabuddin Constitution of India, Art-226-Quashing of FIR-Dispute arises out from matrimonial differences-if the Parties settled their difference out of court and compromised to settled all cases against each other-writ court should not hesitate to quash the criminal Proceeding to secure the end of justice. Held: Para 8 In view of the above judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is clear that in cases where the parties have settled their disputes amicably the High Court should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings so as to secure the ends of justice. Case law discussed: (2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 464; 2000 SCC (Cri) 733; AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386; (1977) 2 SCC 699. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners Imran and others for issuing a writ, order or direction in the