Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1537
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Janam Singh
KASHI RAM
Versus
KESHAR CHAND
Decided On : 30 September 1999
Revision No. 147 of 1997-98
Revision not maintainable if filed against a different order.
Headnote:
Revision - Order Discrepancy - The court dismissed the revision filed against an order on the grounds that the date of the order mentioned in the revision did not match the actual date of the order, and the copy annexed with the revision was of a different order. The court found the revision not maintainable and dismissed it.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed a revision against an order, but the date of the order mentioned in the revision did not match the actual date of the order, and the copy annexed with the revision was of a different order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the revision not maintainable and dismissed it.
Issues: Discrepancy in the date of the order mentioned in the revision, and the copy annexed with the revision being of a different order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision was not maintainable as it was filed against a different order, and therefore, dismissed it.
Final Decision: Revision dismissed.
This revision has been filed by Kashi Ram against the order dated 25-6-1998 passed by learned Additional Commissioner Garhwal Division but in the memo of revision the date of order is mentioned as 28-6-98.
2. The learned Additional Commis sioner has rejected the restoration ap plication of the revisionist dated 28-2-1997 on the ground that the knowledge of hearing for appeal pending before the learned Additional Commissioner was there because the summons issued from the office were duly served on Kashi Ram which bears the signature of Kashi Ram and the same signature tallies with the signature of the summons which were is sued by the trial Court to Kashi Ram and also the Vakalatnama which has been filed before the learned Additional Commis sioner. Keeping these views in mind, the learned Additional Commissioner dis missed the restoration application dated 28-2-1997.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the date of order which is mentioned in the name of revision is 28-6-1998 whereas the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division is dated 25-6-1998. 1 agree with the arguments ad vanced by the learned Counsel for the op posite-party that the revision has been filed against someother order and the copy which has been annexed with the memo of revision is of a different order. The order in question against which revision has been filed has not been annexed with the memo of revision.
4. I, therefore, find that the revision is not maintainable being filed against a dif ferent order and on the basis of that it is fit to be dismissed. Revision has no force and is dismissed accordingly.
Revision dismissed.
.
