Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Moti Rani v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. - 40185 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14770 (31 August 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).


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

It appears that 9.5.2006 was the date fixed in the revision filed by Ram Subhag but on that date he could not appear and the revision was dismissed in default. Ram Subhag filed a restoration application. His case is that he could not appear as he had gone to the civil court to obtain signatures of his counsel on the objections but in the meanwhile the revision was dismissed in default. The cause shown by respondent Ram Subhag appears to be sufficient. The restoration application filed by Ram Subhag has been allowed by the impugned order and it appears rightly so.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Ram Subhag is bound by the orders passed by this Court and by Supreme Court in earlier cases. The observation in the order impugned is that Ram Subhag was not party in the appeal of Moti Rani the order of which has been challenged in the revision giving rise to this petition and the other apepal was filed by Shankar in which Ram Subhag was a party but Shankar lost the case upto the Supreme Court and the order of the High Court and Supreme Court has no effect upon the revision. The observations made in the order of restoration appear to be observations prima facie made as the Deputy Director of Consolidation was only considering the restoration application and not deciding the revision on merits. It would therefore be open to the petitioner to raise the question regarding the effect of the order in those cases upon the rights of Ram Subhag at the time of hearing of the revision on merits. No ground for interference with the order of restoration has been made out. With the aforesaid observations the petition is dismissed.

Dt. 31.8.2007



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 |

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