Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Amar Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned State Counsel and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for opposite party no.4.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by opposite party no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, in Revision No. 1495 (Amar Bahadur and Others v. Ram Samhar and Others), preferred under Section 48 of U.P. Consolation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").
4. It would be apt to point here that four revisions namely Revision No. 1485 (Asha Ram and Others v. Malti Singh and Others, Revision No. 1495 (Amar Bahadur and Others v. Ram Samhar and Others, Revision No. 1631 (Bankey Bhihari and Others v. Ram Milan and Others and Revision No. 1604 (Balai and Others v. Ban
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must address condonation of delay before considering case merits, as established in precedent.
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.
Relief not sought in specific terms cannot be granted, emphasizing the necessity of proper pleadings in legal proceedings.
Discretionary orders regarding interim relief should not be interfered with unless they are patently illegal, particularly when no merits are decided.
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
The sufficiency of cause must be the focus in applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not previous conduct or merits of prior orders.
The court emphasized that extraordinary delays in appeal require strict scrutiny, asserting that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to justify condonation, balancing justice with the rights accrue....
Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.
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
