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


Ram Pal v. Addl. Distt. Magistrate/D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 4051 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 7672 (25 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.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4051 of 2005

Ram Pal Singh   ......... Petitioner


Additional District Magistrate/

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai and others .............. Respondents


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Heard counsel for the parties. An order dated 10.6.1996 was passed by the Consolidation Officer maintaining the earlier dated 13.3.1996. An application, for setting aside that order was filed by Rama Devi respondent no.3. The said application was accompanied by an application for condoning the delay in which it  It was stated that she was an illiterate lady and on account of her illness could not attend the court nor inform her counsel and when she came to know about the exparte order she made the  application for recall. The application it is stated in the counter affidavit of Rama Devi was supported by affidavit copy of which has been annexed. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to state whether any counter affidavit to this application was filed. The delay was condoned by the consolidation officer by order dated 10.4.2003 and the order dated 10.6.1996 was set aside. Against that order a revision was filed which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.  

The order condoning the delay is a discretionary one. Sufficient cause was shown by respondent no.3 for not being able to attend the court on account of her illness and for that reason also being unable to inform the counsel. In the absence of any counter affidavit the court below did not commit any error in condoning the delay. Moreover it has been found that the order dated 13.3.1996 which has been maintained by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 10.6.1996 was in fact an exparte one as held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated  23.12.1998. The case was remanded to the consolidation Officer for fresh decision. In the facts and circumstances, the order passed by the courts below restoring the case does not suffer from any error which may call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed.  However, the Consolidation Officer shall try to dispose of the case expeditiously and if possible within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him  by either of the parties.

Dt. 23.4.2007



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.