Back
High Court of Allahabad
Girdhari Lal, J.
Satyendra Kumar
Vs.
Balgovind
Decided on : Apr 16, 2002
Impleadment - U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act - The court allowed the revision against the rejection of the impleadment application, emphasizing the need to afford the applicant a proper opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.
Fact of the Case:
A case under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was pending before the trial Court. An application for impleadment was filed by Satyendra Kumar, claiming to be a relative of Heshav and beneficiary of a will deed executed by Keshav. The trial Court rejected the impleadment application, leading to a revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impleadment application was rejected without affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence. As a result, the court allowed the revision, setting aside the orders of the trial Court and the learned Additional Commissioner, and directing the trial Court to provide a proper opportunity for the applicant to present evidence and be heard.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the impleadment application without affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental principle of affording parties the opportunity to be heard and present evidence before making a decision, as enshrined in the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the orders of the trial Court and the learned Additional Commissioner were set aside. The trial Court was directed to provide the applicant with a proper opportunity to produce evidence and be heard in the impleadment application.
1. GIRDHARI Lal, J. This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 20-2- 90 by which the learned Additional Commissioner has rejected the revision filed by Satyendra Kumar.
2. BRIEF facts of this case is that a case under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was pending before the trial Court. An application for impleadment was filed by Satyendra Kumar in the present case. In the impleadment application it was alleged by the plaintiff that he is relative of Heshav and Keshav has executed a will deed in his favour. The learned trial Court rejected the impleadment application. A revision was preferred against the order of the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Commissioner has not discussed any reasons for rejecting the revision but he has rejected in only one line order that order under revision is correct.
Heard the parties.
3. IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the parties his impleadment application was rejected. No opportunity was given to produce the will deed.
4. IT has been opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
After perusal of the orders of the learned trial Court it reveals that the impleadment application was rejected without affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
5. THEREFORE revision is allowed; the orders of the trial Court and the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside. It is directed to the trial Court that the applicant Satyendra Kumar be given proper opportunity to produce evidence in respect of his interest and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties the impleadment application be decided by the trial Court.
Revision allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
