Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HELAL AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Helal Ahmad v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - C No. 11399 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 5085 (3 March 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. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.2.2004 passed by respondent no.2 by which the appellate court has allowed the application for impleadment moved by the father of respondents no.4 and 5.

A proceeding was initiated on the basis of the objection raised on behalf of the father of respondents no.4 and 5 under Section 10 of U.P. Regulation of Building Operation Act. The order was passed against the petitioner and the petitioner as provided under the Act has filed an appeal under Section 15(2) of the Act. During pendency of the appeal Sri Eaklaq Ahmad filed an application for impleadment but during the pendency of the said application Sri Eaklaq Ahmad died. As such respondents no.4 and 5 being the heirs of Sri Eaklaq Ahamad have pursued that application and have submitted before the appellate court that they may be impleaded as parties.

After hearing cousnel for the parties, the appellate court vide its order dated 17.2.2004 has allowed the application and has directed that respondents no. 4 and 5 may be impleaded as respondent in the proceeding. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.2.2004 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have got no concern with the property in dispute. In a proceeding under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act, they are not necessary parties, therefore, the court below has allowed the application illegally vide its order dated 17.2.2-004.

After hearing counsel for the parties as the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act was initiated against the petitioner only on the basis of the objection filed by the father of respondents no.4 and 5 and an application for impleadment was pending but during the pendency of the said application, the father of respondents no.4 and 5 died, as such the heirs of Eaklaq Ahmad have pursued the matter and after hearing both the parties, the application was allowed for impleadment by order dated 17.2.2005, in my opinion, the court below has not committed any illegality.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

3.3.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.11399  of 2004


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.