# Sachin Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 398
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-11
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 5486 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54590
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Rule - 3-A - Order - XVII - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Section - 13 - Misc.
Petition - challenging the impugned order -
whereby the Family Court, rejected the
petitioner's application for being examined
through video conferencing - an

## Text

398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Having gone through the
provisions of the Act of 2021, this Court is
of the considered view that the Act of 2021
confers jurisdiction on rent authority/rent
tribunal to entertain petitions filed by
landlord or eviction/ejectment of tenant for
recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc.
but there is no provision in the aforesaid act
which confers jurisdiction on the rent
authority/rent tribunal to entertain a suit for
perpetual injunction filed by a tenant
against his dispossession otherwise then in
accordance with the law. Therefore, the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain
suits for injunction filed by tenants against
their landlords, is not barred by the
provisions of the Act of 2021 and the Civil
Court continues to have jurisdiction to
entertain the suits for injunction even after
enactment of the Act of 2021.

11. By declining to admit the suit for
perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner,
the Civil Judge has failed to exercise a
jurisdiction vested in it by law, which
makes the order passed by the Civil Judge,
as also the order passed by the revisional
court affirming the order of Civil Judge,
unsustainable in law.

12. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed. Order dared 15.11.2022 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Court No.16 Raebareli and the order dated
07.08.2023 passed by the learned First
Additional District Judge, Raebareli are set
aside. The Civil Judge is directed to pass
fresh orders regarding admission of the suit
keeping in view the observations made in
this order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5486 of 2024
(Criminal)

Sachin Kumar Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Kumar Jadaun

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 227 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 457 - The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955-Section 7(3)- Petitioner/Trust preferred a
Criminal Revision for claiming the expenses incurred
by him to the tune of Rs. 2,52,700/ spent in taking
care of the said cattle from the period 23.08.2023 to
03.10.2023 and seeking further relief to get the said
cattle released in favour of the Trust-Section 7 (3)
Any Goshala or any institution may receive any cow,
bull or bullock for custody from police or any other
person which may be released to the owner on such
terms and conditions and in such manner and on
payment of such charges as may be prescribed-
The Court below has rightly released the cattle in
favour of the respondent no. 4 being the owner of
the seized cows and the calves The petitioner is at
liberty to claim the necessary expenses incurred by
him in taking care of the cattle before the
competent authority. (Para 7 to 10)

Petition disposed of. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri S.C. Mishra, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
9 All. Sachin Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
been filed with a prayer to issue an order or
direction to set aside the impugned order
dated
12.12.2023
passed
by
learned
Revisional Court/learned Court of Session
Judge, Ghazipur and impugned order dated
21.09.2023 passed by learned Court of
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mohammadabad,
Ghazipur.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
the Trustee/Co-President of Sarvashva
Narayan Gau Raksha Evam Samaj Seva
Trust (in short the Trust) established in the
year 2015.

4. The instant matter arises out of an
FIR No. 0133 of 2023 dated 20.08.2023
registered under Section 3/5A/5B/8 of the
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955 wherein the respondent no. 4 Vikram
Kumar Gupta was named as an accused and
about 18 cows and four calves were seized
from his truck. On 23.8.2023, the Station
House Officer of Police Station Bahwarkol,
District Ghazipur handed over the seized
cattle to the petitioner's Trust to take care
and to look after the cattle by arranging the
fodder etc.

5. The respondent no. 4 being the
owner of the seized cattle filed an
application under Section 457 Cr.P.C.
before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 1, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur
seeking release of his cattle.

6. Accordingly, vide order dated
21.09.2023, the said cattle were released
in favour of Respondent No. 4-Vikram
Kumar Gupta/owner by the Civil Judge
(Junior
Division)/Judicial
Magistrate,
Court No. 1, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur
after seeking an undertaking and a
personal bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a
surety of the like amount.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner/Trust preferred a Criminal
Revision bearing Criminal Application
No. 668 of 2023 claiming the expenses
incurred by him to the tune of Rs.
2,52,700/ spent in taking care of the said
cattle from the period 23.08.2023 to
03.10.2023 and seeking further relief to
get the said cattle released in favour of
the Trust. But the said Criminal Revision
was dismissed in limine as the petitioner
had no locus to challenge the said order.

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to
quote Section 7, sub-section (3) of U.P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955
which specifically provides as follows:

"Section 7 (3) Any Goshala or
any institution may receive any cow, bull
or bullock for custody from police or
any other person which may be released
to the owner on such terms and
conditions and in such manner and on
payment of such charges as may be
prescribed."

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as well as the provision as
quoted above, the Court below has rightly
released the cattle in favour of the
respondent no. 4 being the owner of the
seized cows and the calves after seeking an
undertaking and executing a personal bond
of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a surety of the like
amount which is not illegal. The order
dated 12.12.2023 has been passed after
proper application of judicial mind.

10. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to claim the necessary expenses
incurred by him in taking care of the cattle.
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In case, the petitioner moves an application
before the competent authority claiming
necessary expenses incurred by him, the
same shall be considered and disposed of as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of four weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order,
if there is no other legal impediment.

11. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 400
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5952 of 2023

Dr. Priti Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Birendra Narain Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Saksham Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Saurabh Misra, Jai Prakash Awasthi

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 -
Rule - 3-A - Order - XVII - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Section - 13 - Misc.
Petition - challenging the impugned order -
whereby the Family Court, rejected the
petitioner's application for being examined
through video conferencing - and seeking
further prayer to direct the court below to
record her evidence either through video
conferencing
or
through
her
power
of
attorney holder - prayer of which was
objected by the opposite party - court finds
that, the evidence of the petitioner's mother
(who has holder of power of attorney) has
already been recorded as PW-1 cannot be
expected to St. different facts on oath while
appearing in her personal capacity and in the
capacity
of
power
of
attorney
holder,
therefore, is not acceptable - held, no
illegality in the order impugned - there
appears to be no special reason to permit the
petitioner to appear as a witness now when
her mother and power of attorney holder has
already been examined - petition being lack
merits and the same is dismissed. (Para - 13,
16)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Saksham Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Saurabh Misra, learned counsel for the
opposite party.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged the
validity of an order dated 06.09.2023
passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge-IV, Family Court, Lucknow in Case
No.440 of 2019 under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has
further prayed for issuance of a direction to
the Family Court to record her evidence
through video conferencing or through her
power of attorney holder.

3. Briefly stated, facts stated in the
petition are that marriage of the parties was
solemnized on 11.02.2008 at New Delhi.
Out of the wedlock between the parties, a
daughter was born on 15.02.2011 at
Belfest, Northern Ireland and a son was
born on 14.02.2013 in Scotland. The
petitioner is a British citizen and she is
domicile
of
United
Kingdom.
The
respondent also had the intention to settle
in the United Kingdom but he could not
qualify the entrance examination required
for
medical
practitioners
to
obtain
employment in United Kingdom and