Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict on CMO Bulk Messaging
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Shrivastava Highlights Bench-Bar Partnership in Farewell Speech
06 Mar 2026
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
06 Mar 2026
Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Sri Lankan Judge's Right to be Forgotten Plea for Removing Alleged Defamatory Online Content
06 Mar 2026
Compensation U/S 28A LA Act Not Restricted to Foundational Award: Bombay High Court
06 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadikari Bids Empathetic Farewell to Kerala High Court
06 Mar 2026
Criminal Probe Can't Continue Against Unknowns Sans Prima Facie Offence: Bombay HC Quashes CBI FIR
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
JASPREET SINGH
Chitra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Upendra Singh learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri Virendra Shukla learned counsel for the private respondent no.3.
2. In pursuance of the order passed by the Court dated 13.08.2024 this matter has been placed today and the then Tehsildar Ms. Vaishali Ahlawat is present in Court along with the record pertaining to the case under Section 34 of the Revenue Code, 2006 (Shubham Singh vs. Suryabhan Singh @ Vishwavijay Singh).
3. In order to put the matter in a perspective it will be necessary to notice certain facts. The petitioner has filed the instant petition assailing the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya whereby it rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the order impugned is merely interlocutory in nature and in any case, since the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to canvas its case before the Tehsildar. Hence, the revision was declined.
Orders must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders them invalid.
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.
Discretionary orders regarding interim relief should not be interfered with unless they are patently illegal, particularly when no merits are decided.
Judicial orders must be supported by reasons, and the existence of an alternative statutory remedy limits the court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require a fair hearing and reasoned decisions, which were violated in this case.
The appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, lies against the order of status-quo, rendering the revision filed under Section 210 not maintainable.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing all parties an adequate opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings, ruling that procedural irregularities render decisions unsustainable.
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