Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
JASPREET SINGH
Ghasita – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Secy. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.3, as a consequence, in recall proceedings at the behest of State the principal order dated 31.07.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner has been stayed.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1901. The said proceedings were contested by the State who had also filed their written objections and a copy thereof has been brought on record as annexure no.3. It is also submitted that the respondents were delaying the proceedings and as such the respondent no.3 by means of order dated 31.07.2021 allowed the application of the petitioner
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be disposed of before trial; failure constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting revision.
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
Listen Article