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


Kodai Khan v. Smt. Mewati Devi And Others - WRIT - B No. 66131 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20545 (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. 66133 of   2006

Ram Lachchan vs. Smt. Mewati Devi & others

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66131 of 2006

Kodai Khan vs. Smt. Mewati Devi & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

These are two connected writ petitions directed against the same order.

By means of these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner. Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The facts are that an application moved by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis of an alleged sale deed dated 26.12.2001 was allowed by Tehsildar vide order dated 7.3.2002. Vendor Babulal predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1 filed an application dated 10.7.2003 for recalling the order dated 7.3.2002 in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it was passed ex-parte without any notice or proper proclamation. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 4.2.2005 allowed the application and recalled the said order on the ground that it was passed ex-parte without opportunity of hearing to the vendor and directed the case to be heard on merits after affording opportunity of hearing and evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 2.6.2006. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 31.8.2006.

All the three courts have held that order dated 7.3.2005 in favour of the petitioner was passed ex-parte without any opportunity of hearing. The appellate court and revisional court have also held that proclamation was not served.

In view of the aforesaid finding, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below setting aside the ex-parte order and directed the case to be heard and decided on merits after opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In the result, both the writ petitions are 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.