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


Chandrapal & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 6832 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6313 (6 April 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).


Court No. 40.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6832 of 2007.

Chandrapal and another.


Deputy Director of Consolation, Saharanpur and others.


Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madhusudan Dixit for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1.

Notices were issued to respondent nos. 5 to 9 by Registered Post fixing 8-5-2007 but no one has put in appearance on their behalf.

This Writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 17.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur whereby he allowed the revisions and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for afresh decision.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed on the short question as to whether the additional evidence which was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision was worth admitting or not and whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation could remand the case to the Consolidation Officer for re-consideration of the evidence without himself satisfying as to the relevancy of the documents filed and without admitting the same.

From a perusal of the judgement of Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation after noting the respective arguments of the parties, in the last paragraph of his judgement only mentioned that at the stage of revision certain  documents which included the extract of Khatauni were filed and these documents required consideration by the Consolidation Officer, being the Trial Court and therefore, the matter should be sent back.

In my opinion, the reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for remanding the matter is not justified. Firstly, any additional evidence filed in revision should have been accompanied by an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. with sufficient explanation to cover the reasons for admitting the additional evidence.  In the present case no application was filed for admitting additional evidence.  Assuming for the sake of arguments that the Deputy Director can look into the documents even without there being a proper application under Order 41 Rule 27 supported by an affidavit, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ought to have examined the additional evidence filed before it before remanding the matter.  

From perusal of the judgement it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the evidence filed before it and merely on the ground of its filing has directed for consideration of the same by the Trial Court i.e. Consolidation Officer and has remanded the matter.  

Without going into the question as to whether an application was necessary or not, as in consolidation proceedings strict rules of procedure do not apply, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside with a direction to him to atleast examine the additional evidence filed and only if such evidence would have a bearing on the findings already recorded and would be relevant for proper adjudication, that the mater may be remanded.

In view of the above discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation impugned in this Writ Petition dated 17.1.2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider the additional evidence in the light of the observations made above and only thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.




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.