Back
JASPREET SINGH
Anoop Kumar @ Anoop Kumar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for private respondents no.2 & 3 on caveat. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the DDC, Bahraich whereby an application moved by the petitioner dated 28.03.2024 has been disposed of in terms of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private respondents no.2 & 3 had filed a revision before the respondent no.1. The said revision was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Upon notice of the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed an application dated 23.03.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No.8 to the petition. In terms of the said application, it was urged by the petitioner that the revision is barred by limitation and this issue of limitation should be considered as a preliminary issue and be decided first. On the said application, the Presiding Officer, by means of order dated 30.03.2022, passed an order that all the
The principle of res judicata applies at different stages of litigation, and failure to challenge prior decisions precludes subsequent applications on the same issues.
The principle of res judicata and the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were central to the court's decision.
A disputed question cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
The trial court must reevaluate the limitation of a suit based on evidence and compliance with prior orders, rather than rely solely on earlier decisions.
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.
Judicial compliance requires courts to adhere to directives for reassessment of issues, particularly concerning limitation in civil suits.
The applicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act supersedes Article 137 for final decree applications, allowing exclusion of prior litigation periods in calculating limitation.
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.
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
