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


Sanno Devi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 46228 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15889 (21 September 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46228 of 2007

Sanno Devi ........................................................................... Petitioner


State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.8.2007 and 10.9.2007 passed by the revisional court. Revision has been filed by the respondent no. 3 arising out of the proceedings Under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The petitioner has also earlier come to this Court challenging the interlocutory order by filing the writ petition No. 26065 of 2007. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 31.5.2007. Now again the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the order of the revisional court dated 20.8.2007 by which order the revisional court has ordered that the question of maintainability and entertainability of the revision shall be considered at the time of final hearing. The petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 20.8.2007 which has been rejected. The petitioner's case was that the order dated 20.8.2007 was ex parte. The revision filed by the respondent no. 3 has not yet been finally decided. The petitioner has earlier also attempted to challenge the interlocutory order in which he failed. This writ petition is again filed challenging the interlocutory order. The petitioner's prayer for deciding the entertainability and maintainability of the revision has been rightly rejected by the revisional court. There is no error in the order of the revisional court that the question of maintainability and entertainability of the revision shall be considered at the time of final hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the revision was not filed by the revisionist and this question shall also be considered at the time final hearing.

No grounds made out for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.




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.