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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ram Zani – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Order on C.M. Substitution Application dated 05.01.2024
In compliance of the order dated 01.02.2024, true copy of the substitution application in respect to the petitioner No.5 is on record.
2. Office is directed to allot fresh number to the instant application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The instant application has been filed in respect to the petitioner No.5 with the prayer that her heirs are already on record as petitioner Nos.1 to 4.
5. The application is allowed.
6. Let the word deceased be mentioned against the name of petitioner No.5 and note be made that her heirs are already on record of the writ petition as petitioner No.1 to 4.
Order on Writ Petition
7. Heard Mr. S.M. A. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/5, 2/1, 5 and 6, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel
The Board of Revenue must resolve pending applications before proceeding with appeals, ensuring all parties are properly notified.
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.
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, affirming that delays in restoration applications can be dismissed on grounds of limitati....
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair hearing before making decisions that affect parties' rights, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
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.
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