High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mursleen v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 43985 of 2006  RD-AH 14034 (22 August 2006)
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.