ROOPAM CHAUDHARY AND 3 OTHERS v. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 3 UNNAO AND ANOTHER
A227/1883/2024 · 2025-08-19
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 132495 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 132495 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48547 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1883 of 2024 Petitioner :- Roopam Chaudhary And 3 Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Court No. 3 Unnao And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhisht Saran,Alok Mehrotra,Rahul Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Saxena Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 25.07.2023 whereby, the application filed for recall or modification of the order dated 11.05.2022 has been rejected.
3. It is stated that the petitioners are the landlord of the property in dispute and lease deeds were executed in between the petitioners and the Bank. It is also stated that on 10.04.2019, an notice for termination of the lease was served upon the Bank and also same was sent through registered post. Thereafter a suit for ejectment was filed by the petitioners. The petitioners also filed an application bearing no.20-G for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and Application-27-Ga for physical possession of the property in question, which were rejected by the trial court vide order dated 11.05.2022. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2022, the petitioners filed applications for recall/ modification of the order dated 11.05.2022, which was rejected by means of the impugned order.
4. Considering the fact that the order impugned is an interlocutory order, no good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. The JSC Court concerned is directed to consider and decide the SCC Suit No.2 of 2019 (Roopam Chaudhary and others vs State Bank of India) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
6. The petitioner would be entitled to raise all the defences in the abovesaid suit, which shall be decided in accordance with
law.
7. Both the parties would also be entitled to raise their
contentions with regard to the grant of damages/ additional damages, which shall be decided in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to sent a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench