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


Mursleen v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 43985 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14034 (22 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.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43985 of 2006

Mursleen vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Devendra Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts are that the petitioner applied for mutation of his name on the basis of the sale deed said to have been executed in his favour. Vide order dated 4.3.2003 Naib Tehsildar allowed the same and directed the name of the petitioner to be mutated in the revenue record. After about two and half months a restoration application was moved by respondent no.4 for recalling the order on the ground that the same was passed ex-parte without any notice to him. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 7.7.2003 rejected the restoration application, against which an appeal was filed. Respondent no.3 vide order dated 31.3.2004 allowed the same on the finding that the order passed was ex-parte and the application to recall the same was wrongly rejected as barred by time inasmuch as the delay was liable to be condoned. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went up in revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2006.

Since by the order impugned in the writ petition an ex-parte order has been recalled and the dispute has been directed to be adjudicated on merits after opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. It is always in the interest of justice that the dispute between the parties may be adjudicated on merits rather than on mere technicalities. In this view of the matter also, the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.




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.