Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RATAN SINGH AND OTHERS versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ratan Singh And Others v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad And Another - WRIT - C No. 22547 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8445 (26 April 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

A.F.R.

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22547 of 2006

Ratan Singh & others Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow & another

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Surya Shankar Pandey holding brief of Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the respondents.

This petition challenges the order of the revisional court dated 10.01.2006 whereby the court below has allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial court dated 24.8.2005 granting permission to the petitioners plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.

The suit against U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad was filed in which it was alleged that the statutory notice under Section 82 (2) of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, had been given but since the notice was not given by registered post, the petitioners plaintiffs did not have documentary evidence with regard to service of the said notice. As such finding this formal defect in the suit the prayer was made before the trial court for its withdrawal under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) C.P.C. The prayer was quite innocuous and as such it was accepted by the trial court vide its order, annexure No. 4. The revisional court, while discussing all these aspects of the matter for no good reasons, has arrived that the order permitting withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, was erroneous. The order of the revisional court thus, appears to be wholly misconceived. The aforesaid provision of Order 23 Rule 1 (3) C.P.C., for appreciation on the point, is quoted as below:-

"Where the Court is satisfied,-

(a) that a suit must fail by reasons of some formal defect, or

(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim,

it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim."

From the aforesaid provision, it is more than evident that if the court is satisfied that the suit shall fail by reasons of some formal defect it may be treated to be a sufficient ground to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Acting purely in the light and spirit of the aforesaid provision of the Code, the trial court passed the order. The revisional court without recording any reason as to the propriety and justification of the satisfaction of the trial court being erroneous, found that the permission should not have been granted for withdrawal as well as for leave to file a fresh suit. It is no where recorded in the  revisional order that why the said court was not satisfied that the suit shall fail for some reason of formal defect and instead recording its dissatisfaction to the prayer made by the plaintiffs petitioners has interfered into the findings recorded by the trial court. The revisional court's orders appears to be wholly erroneous and cannot sustain in the eye of law.

In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the revisional court (Addl. District Judge, Court No.8, Meerut) is hereby set aside. The order of the trial court (Annexure No. 4) is restored.

26.04.2006

gp/


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.