Under Art. 227, the petitioner sought to set aside impugned revision orders. Due to the petitioner's counsel's absence despite a revised list, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 25
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2117 of 2017
Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Puthiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfanul Huda,Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Goyal,Rakesh Kumar Mathur
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
List has been revised. No body is present on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.2 is present.
The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that issue an order or direction of suitable nature setting aside the impugned orders dated 17.9.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2 Moradabad, in Criminal Revision No. 349 of 2013 as well as Criminal Revision No.308 of 2013 (Nikhil Kumar Puthiya Vs. Neeraj Kumar Puthiya).
It is contended by Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent that the findings were duly recorded by the Revisional Court regarding possession of the property and as such no interference should call for by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Moreover, even in the revised list, counsel for the petitioner is not present.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in default.
Order Date :- 24.5.2019 saqlain
Neeraj Kumar Puthiya
State Of U.P
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
