Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KISHORE versus D.D.C. & ORS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kishore v. D.D.C. & Ors - WRIT - B No. - 59417 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18637 (5 December 2007)

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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59417 of 2007



Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri K. K. Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. K. Tripathi appearing for the contesting respondents.

During pendency of the revision filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation allowing section 5 application and giving benefit of limitation, an amendment application was moved to amend the prayer of the revision to the effect that proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation may be quashed. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.10.2007 dismissed the said application on the ground that question of maintainability of revision is yet to be decided unless revision is held to be maintainable, there is no justification to allow amendment.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment can be allowed at any stage and Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally dismissed the amendment application.

From the perusal of the amendment application filed as Annexure ''1' to the writ petition, it is clear that totally irrelevant and frivolous amendment was being sought by the petitioner in the prayer clause in as much as if the revision filed by him would be allowed, the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation under challenge would stand set aside.

In this view of the matter, the amendment sought that proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation may also be quashed is totally irrelevant and frivolous and do not deserve to be allowed. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the amendment application.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.



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.