Back
JASPREET SINGH
Chitra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya – Respondent
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.
4. The petitioner has specifically stated that the order impugned is bad in eyes of law in as much as it is without due notice and against the settled legal princi
Orders must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders them invalid.
An order passed without issuing notice to involved parties and without condoning delay is jurisdictionally incorrect, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Judicial integrity must be maintained through consistency in orders, and manipulation of judicial records undermines the rule of law and public confidence.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
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.
The court emphasized that orders affecting rights must follow due process, ensuring fair opportunity for all parties before any decision is made.
Discretionary orders regarding interim relief should not be interfered with unless they are patently illegal, particularly when no merits are decided.
The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require a fair hearing and reasoned decisions, which were violated in this case.
A revision petition against an ex-parte ad-interim stay order is not maintainable if an appeal is available under the relevant legal provisions.
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
