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


Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh And Others v. Avadh Kishore Chaturvedi And Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 305 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13101 (7 August 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).


Court No. 24

Civil Revision No. 305 of 2006

Mayankeshwar Sharan Singh & others Vs. Avadh Kishore Chaturvedi & others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionists.

Learned counsel submits that in an application under Section 92 C.P.C. made by the opposite parties-plaintiffs, leave to file the suit was sought. The court below upon that leave application had issued notices to the defendants and in pursuance to that they had put in appearance. The applicants-revisionists also moved certain application and objections before the court in connection with proposed leave to be given under Section 92 aforesaid. The court below by the impugned order without going into the merits of these objections and without granting proper hearing to the applicants, has granted the leave and that was wholly illegal. Once a particular defendant has preferred to file objections against such leave petition, the court is bound to dispose of the same and cannot summarily grant the leave, as has been done in the present case.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the defendants in pursuance to the notice issued in the matter did appear and also filed various applications and objections, which were disposed of by the court. This observation of the court below in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel has been challenged and if the said challenge is correct, the observations are factually incorrect. In case, certain observations and findings have been recorded by the court below without looking into the facts and circumstances, as available on record in writing, the remedy to the aggrieved party against that order, is very much open through a review petition. The court below may by mistake record certain factual observations and in that case the court has jurisdiction to recall its own order on a review application and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. If this is a state of affairs of the present case also, the applicants-revisionists have remedy of approaching the same court through review petition and urge the court to recall/review of this order to that extent.

Therefore, this revision in the present matter cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.




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.