Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Phulau – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notice and representation of parties (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. filing and implications of caveat (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. instruction provided by the standing counsel (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. interim orders and hearings process (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. discrepancies in court procedures (Para 13 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. restoration of interim order (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. final order and implications (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Standing Counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf respondent no. 4-Gaon Sabha.
2. Sri Diwakar Shukla, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent nos. 5 to 8 and has filed his valatnama which is taken on record.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that against an order passed under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh which was registered on 15.10.2024. The appeal was admitted and till the next date the impugn
The court emphasized that orders affecting rights must follow due process, ensuring fair opportunity for all parties before any decision is made.
The court upheld the validity of an interim order despite procedural claims regarding caveat linkage, emphasizing that the revision was filed prior to the caveat.
An order passed without issuing notice to involved parties and without condoning delay is jurisdictionally incorrect, violating principles of procedural fairness.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
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.
The court reaffirmed the necessity of a fair hearing in judicial proceedings, emphasizing that no order should be made without affording all parties the opportunity to present their case.
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
