Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jagdish Kaur v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad & Others - WRIT - C No. 65522 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20539 (5 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65522 of   2006

Jagdish Kaur vs. Commissioner, Moradabad Division,

Moradabad & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri H.R.Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition arises out of proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (for short ''the Act'). Facts relevant for the purposes of the case are as under :

An application for mutation of her name moved by contesting respondent no.3 was dismissed in default vide order dated 18.3.2002. A belated application to recall the same was moved which was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner who is also claiming rights in the property on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been executed in her favour by Power of Attorney holder of the recorded tenure-holder, preferred a revision. Revisional court vide order dated 23.10.2006 dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that restoration application was moved after two years and the same was wrongly allowed. It has further been alleged that revision filed by the petitioner challenging the said order has also been wrongly dismissed.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

Since by the impugned order only restoration application has been allowed and an ex-parte order has been recalled, I see no good ground to interfere with the same. Revision filed by the petitioner challenging the said order has rightly been dismissed. It is always in the interest of justice that dispute between the parties may be adjudicated on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner will have full opportunity of contesting the proceeding and thus, there is no prejudice caused to him.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope of interference in the impugned order.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.