Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Jumman – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate, who has received notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5/Land Management Committee.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 22.02.1993 passed by the Pargana Adhikari, Tiloi, District- Raebareli, the land/property, in issue, was recorded in the name of State and thereafter the part of land, in issue, was allotted to the father of the petitioners namely Naseer and after his death, the name(s) of the petitioner(s) were recorded in the revenue records.
3. Challenging the order dated 22.02.1993, a revision registered as Case No. 182/1992-1993, Computerized Case No. C1993100000120 (Dayaram v. State) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") was filed by the respondent No. 6 (Sayaram s/o Sewa) and in the revision, neither Naseer (father of the petitioners) was imp-leaded nor the petitioners were imp-leaded and by the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, the revision has been allowed and the impugned order is affecting t
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – In exercising powers under Section 151 of CPC, it cannot be said that civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues – Recalling a f....
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a recall application from a non-party after a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, as it becomes functus officio.
Compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is essential for challenging an ex parte judgment, and procedural missteps do not invalidate ....
Recall of decree – Inherent power may be exercised to undo result achieved by practising fraud upon court – But, if fraud is played upon party, they have to resort to provisions available under law t....
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.
The court affirmed that authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to revoke fraudulent orders even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for review.
The contentious issue of title can only be decided by a competent civil court, and affidavits filed by attesting witnesses cannot be considered as evidence.
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
