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


Jay Ram Singh v. Addl.Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 52490 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16477 (20 September 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).


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner filed an application for impleadment before the authority concerned in the matter which is pending before him. The authority concerned by order dated 12th January 2006 allowed the impleadment of the petitioner in the proceedings arising out of case under Section 202 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Aggrieved by the order impleading the petitioner, the opposite party preferred a revision before the revisional authority. The said revision has been allowed. The order of the authority concerned has been set aside. Thus this writ petition.

The revisional authority has given cogent reason for setting aside the order dated 12th January 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case he is heard in the matter nobody's right will be affected. Thus the view taken by the revisional court, whereby the impleadment of the petitioner has been set aside, suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner's further contention is that he was necessary party. The revisional Court has recorded categorical finding that on inspection the petitioner was not found in possession.

Neither on the question of fact nor on question of law the petitioner, in any way, has been able to demonstrate that he was a necessary or proper party. In my opinion the order setting aside impleadment does not suffer from any error much less an error apparent on the face of record and the view taken by the Commissioner is hereby upheld.

This writ petition, thus, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 20.9.2006.

mhu - 52490/06


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.