Remanded

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018A227/7151/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge set aside impugned orders passed by SDM and Sessions Judge for violating natural justice regarding notice and hearing. Matter remanded to Sessions Judge to hear parties afresh citing Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 27.8.2016, 1.9.2016, and order dated 5.9.2016 set aside. Petition allowed. Matter remanded to Sessions Judge with time limit of two months.

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7151 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Sharma,Himanshu Vishwakarma

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for private respondents and Sri S.S.Tiwari, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders dated 27.8.2016 and 1.9.2016 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate,Sadar, Jaunpur in suit no.59 of 2016.are without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore the case can not be sustained and the revisional order dated 5.9.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Revision no.NIl of 2016 is also not maintainable.

¶7

It is next contended that the petitioners have already instituted Suit No.954 of 2016 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur, in which the respondents have filed application under Section 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. on which the concerned Court below had proceeded ex parte, which is bad in law. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 LawSuit(SC) 829 and in the matter of Ranbir Singh Vs. Dalbir Singh reported in 2002 Law Suit(SC) 370.

¶8

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court it would be in the interest of justice that the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur may hear the issue rasied by the petitioners and pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law. Thus, the orders dated 27.8.2016 & 1.9.2016 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar, Jaunpiur and order dated 5.9.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur are hereby set aside and accordingly the petition stands allowed.

¶9

The matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur for considering the same and pass appropriate orders afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after perusing the law laid down on this point by the Apex Court as mentioned above.

¶10

This exercise be undertaken by the learned court below within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before it.

¶11

Order Date :- 11.9.2018 IA

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amaruddin Vs State of U.P.

Satish @ Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Shamim @ Vashim Vs State of U.P.

Jabbir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Jiyaul Samad Vs State of U.P.

Sugriv Kumar Vs State of U.P.