Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. RAM KALI versus COMMISSIONER AGRA DIVISON, AGRA & OTHRS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Ram Kali v. Commissioner Agra Divison, Agra & Othrs - WRIT - C No. 26517 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10468 (6 June 2007)

 

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.

I have heard Sri S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel or the respondents.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

An order was passed on 5.12.2006 by which the application dated 13.9.2006 filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it has got no force and further it was observed that the parties to the proceeding be given opportunity to file a written statement and by that order the case was ordered to be listed on 20.12.2006.  It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied by order dated 5.12.2006.  He filed a revision on the ground that he is in possession of the land in dispute and Smt. Sunita Devi was never the owner of the property in dispute, therefore, the order passed by the trial court is illegal and without jurisdiction.  The revisional court after recording a finding that as the matter is pending before the trial court and the court had directed by order dated 5.12.2006 to adduce the evidence by the relevant parties and to decide the case on merits. Therefore, the revision is not maintainable and has been dismissed by order dated 8.2.2007.

In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the order.  The order dated 5.12.2006 clearly states that the matter be listed on 20.12.2006 and the parties are directed to adduce the evidence.  The finality was not attached to the order dated 5.12.2006, therefore, the revision itself is not maintainable.  I also see no error in the order dated 5.12.2006. If the contention of the petitioner is correct, the petitioner is free to adduce the evidence regarding his ownership and possession of the property in dispute in the proceeding before the S.D.M. Kashganj.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.      

No order as to costs.    

6.6.2007

SKD

W.P.No.   26517/2007


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.