Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Mohammad Gufran – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 11, Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey for respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's father filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect to the plot nos. 245, 284 situated in Village Khauja Kheda and plot nos. 6, 13, 47, 153, 154, 39 situated in Village Karkheda, Tehsil Tanda, District Rampur. The Trial Court passed the preliminary decree on 21.6.2008 giving one third share to plaintiff-petitioner, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Against the preliminary decree dated 21.6.2008, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been filed at the instance of the private respondents which was registered as miscellaneous case No. 41/ 07-08/ 08 09. The aforementioned restoration application was heard and disposed of vide order dated 14.9.2009 setting aside the order passed for preliminary decree dated 21.6.200
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in legal proceedings, ruling that ex-parte orders and technical rejections of applications cannot deny substantive justice.
Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining interim orders during appeal proceedings and directing merits-based adjudication.
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.
In partition suits, additional issues may be rejected if existing issues sufficiently address the involvement of the parties and the matter at hand.
The court emphasized that technicalities should not be allowed to annul the adjudication made by the trial court and the appellate authorities, and that substantial justice should be done to the liti....
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.
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
