Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHEERENDRA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dheerendra & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 5816 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2334 (31 January 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been filed by respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the suit is pending. In the said suit one of the questions involved is about the applicability of bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Pargana Adhikari, the trial court, by its order dated 28.8.2004 directed that all the issues in the suit shall be decided after the evidence was led. Against that order, the petitioners filed a revision which was allowed by order dated 24.9.2004 and the Additional Commissioner directed that the issue regarding bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act be decided first. It appears that ''punarsthapan'  application was filed by respondent no.4 which was allowed by order dated 20..1.2005 and the order dated 24.9.2004 was set side and the court has fixed a date for hearing of revision. The petitioners have challenged the order on the ground that there was no ground for review of an order, which merely directed issue of jurisdiction to be decided first. In the order impugned the application filed by the respondent no.4 has been described as a ''punarsthapan' application. The copy of the application has not been filed. A ''punarsthapan' application is one for restoration. Even if the jurisdiction issue is to be decided with others, no rights of the petitioners have been decided. The order in question is not shown to suffer from any illegality, which may call for interference.

Dismissed.

Dt. 31.1.2006

Sn/wp-5816/06


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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