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


Jiut Bandham v. Ram Chandra And Another - WRIT - A No. 3955 of 1987 [2005] RD-AH 3366 (22 September 2005)


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.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3955 of 1987

Jiut Bandham  Vs. Ram Chandra and another


Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner filed which is taken on record.

Petitioner claiming himself to be owner-landlord filed suit for eviction against Ram Chandra-respondent no.1 since deceased and survived by legal representatives which was registered as SCC suit no.8 of 1982 on the file of JSCC/Munsif (City), Azamgarh.  The suit was decreed ex-parte on 15.5.1982 thereafter respondent no.1 filed restoration application which was registered as Misc. Case No.1 of 1983.  Trial court on 26.7.1985 rejected the restoration application against which respondent no.1 filed Civil Revision (SCC) no.200 of 1985.  VIIth A.D.J., Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 23.2.1987 allowed the revision, set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the restoration application consequently setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.5.1982.  This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the revisional court.

In the restoration case respondent no.1 examined himself as witness.  Trial court wrongly held that as respondent no.1 had not examined any independent witness hence his version could not be believed. No particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove a particular fact (Section 134 of Evidence Act).  Some leniency in restoration matters is always desirable.  The revisional court after taking into consideration the entire material on record rightly held that sufficient ground for restoration had been made out.  In any case as substantial justice has been done by the impugned orders hence it is not advisable to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.  Trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.  It is needless to say that both the parties will be entitled to lead evidence before trial court and raise such points, which are available to them.




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.