KALI CHARAN versus MAHIPAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Kali Charan v. Mahipal And Others - WRIT - C No. 27619 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9991 (22 May 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

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27619 of 2006

Kali Charan Vs. Mahipal & others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition challenges the order of the revisional court dated  23.2.2006 (Annexure No. 12) whereby  the court below has accepted the revision and has admitted some original registered sale deed on payment of certain costs to the other party.

Learned counsel contends that earlier also this document was filed by the respondents-defendants as a piece of evidence when the oral evidence in the case had already commenced. The trial court as well as the revisional court on that occasion did not find favour with the respondents' prayer and rejected the same and refused to accept the document on record as a piece of evidence. Subsequently another application with the same prayer was presented and the trial court rejected that too. The revisional court has accepted it. The order of the revisional court, thus, is extremely erroneous and should be interfered with in this writ petition.

I do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel and the order rejecting the prayer to take the document as a piece of evidence on record, cannot operate as resjudi cata against subsequent prayer made in that behalf by the same party. Therefore, subsequently when the revisional court found that the document was extremely relevant, a copy of which was already there on record, has accepted it as a piece of evidence and has allowed the revision. The document taken on record is a sale deed by which the respondents-defendants seek their title over the disputed property and the same is so much relevant that it should not have been refused as and when it was earlier filed before the trial court. However, the trial court or the revisional court's earlier order, if has been rectified by the subsequent order of the revisional court, I do not find any infirmity in the same as to call for interference in a writ petition before this court.

The petition having no force is hereby dismissed.

22.05.2006

gp/

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 |

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