Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3093
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Targhiv Ahmad @ Mohammad Talha - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue Allahabad And 5 Others - Respondent
WRIT - B No. 61852 of 2015
Decided On : 20-11-2015
For the Petitioner: Lal Vijai Singh, Ramesh Chandra Singh.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ayush Khanna, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Suresh Chandra Varma.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that resorting to sharp practices and concealing material facts in appeals and revisions can lead to dismissal of the petition, and the court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
Headnote:
Zamindari Land - Suit under Section 229-B - U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, Section 333 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 229-B and Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition arises from a suit under Section 229-B regarding Zamindari land. The petitioners sought to set aside an ex-parte decree, but their applications and revisions were dismissed. The contesting respondents filed revisions against the petitioners' favorable orders, which were allowed by the Board of Revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had resorted to sharp practices and concealed material facts in their appeals and revisions. It held that the impugned order was in line with the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, Section 333, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioners' attempts to set aside the ex-parte decree and the contesting respondents' revisions against the petitioners' favorable orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioners' resorting to sharp practices, concealment of material facts, and the applicability of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition lacked force and was dismissed.
Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the caveator, respondent no. 4, the sole contesting respondent in the writ petition.
2. The instant writ petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B filed by the respondents regarding plot no. 13 and 14 of Mouja Mulla Tola, Post Office Sadar, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur and seeks quashing of an order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 28/2012-13.
3. The suit was filed by the contesting respondent on the allegation that the plots in question were the Zamindari land of the ancestors of the plaintiff. The defendant was wrongly and fraudulently recorded over the land in question and, therefore, suit. This suit was decreed ex-parte by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2009.
4. The case of the petitioners was that they were necessary parties to the suit. They had no knowledge of the suit. It was only when the respondents forcibly tried to occupy the land in question that they came to know about the ex-parte decree. The petitioners, therefore, filed an appeal no. 1 of 2009-2010, TargivAttan Vs Zayada Hasan and others. They also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte decree.
5. Subsequently, on an application of the petitioners, the appeal no. 1 of 2009-10 was ordered to be deposited with the rider that it may be revived on an application of the appellants themselves. This order was passed on 29.03.2010.
6. The application of the petitioners for setting aside ex-parte decree was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 18.08.2010. Against this order the petitioners preferred revision no. 246 of 2010. However, they got it dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 16.05.2013.
7. In the meantime, the petitioners preferred another revision being revision no. 218 of 2012 against the ex-parte decree. This revision was allowed vide order dated 28.09.2012 and the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh decision.
8. The contesting respondents filed an application for recall of the order dated 28.09.2012, which was rejected on 13.02.2013. The respondents, thereafter, filed revision no. 28 of 2012-13. This revision has been allowed by the order impugned in the writ petition.
9. The revision no. 28 was filed against the order dated 28.09.2012, whereby revision no. 218 of 2012 filed by the petitioners was allowed.
10. Revision no. 37 of 2012-13 was filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2013, whereby the application for recall of the order dated 28.09.2012 was dismissed. The revision no. 28 of 2012-13, has been allowed by the impugned order and it has further been observed that the order will also govern revision no. 37 of 2012-13. Hence this writ petition.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that by the impugned order, the petitioners have been rendered remediless and the matter stands decide against them finally, without them having been afforded any opportunity of hearing from the merits of the suit.
12. Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the caveator has submitted that the petitioners have been resorting to sharp practices. They have not been fair in so far as litigation is concerned. In any case the entries in their favour were a result of fraud and forgery. This fraud was corrected by the judgment and decree of the trial court wherein despite notice, the petitioners never appeared to contest the suit. He further submits that the petitioners has not been rendered remediless. They have availed and exhausted the remedies available to them, namely the remedy of filing an application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. as also the remedy of an appeal. In both these remedies orders have been already passed against the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petition calls for no interference.
13. I have considered the submissio
