Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SOMWATI versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Somwati v. Board Of Revenue U.P. And Allahabad And Others - WRIT - B No. 33843 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11292 (11 July 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33843 of 2006

Smt. Somwati vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Alld. and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.  The learned counsel for the petitioner, who is defendant no.8 in the suit pending before S.D.O., hs argued that petitioner shall be provided opportunity to cross examine two witnesses of plaintiff and permitted to examine her witnesses.

It appears that petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings of the suit.  First application was filed to cross-examine Ajai Singh one of the witnesses of the plaintiff.  Petitioner's application was allowed and on 3.11.2004 Ajai Singh was present in court.  On that date learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it was not necessary to cross examine that witness.  The court completely fails to understand that incase petitioner was not interested in cross examining Ajai Singh then why application after application and revision were filed for cross examination of that witness.  The process counsel about a year.

After going through the entire writ petition, hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing impugned orders (order dated 15.7.2005 passed by Deputy Collector, Bindki District Fatehpur in case no.13/10 Archana Singh vs. Gaon Sabha and order dated 9.3.2006 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad in Revision no.181 of 2004 Smt. Somwati vs. Archana Singh) I am satisfied that absolutely no injustice has been done to the petitioner.  Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that proper opportunity was not provided to the petitioner.  In my opinion more than proper opportunity was provided. Instead of contesting the case fairly petitioner always tried to delay the proceedings and at no point of time opportunity was denied to the petitioner.

Writ petition is dismissed.  Deputy Collector, Bindki-Fatehpur is directed to positively decide the suit (13/10/233617/02) within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11.7.2006

RS/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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