Dismissed

Ram Narayan and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019WRIB/2509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders allowing substitution of respondents in proceedings based on a Will, and rejecting a recall application. The Court found cogent reasons existed and the pending suit justifies the status quo, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders dated 27.12.2018 and 23.9.2019 upheld.

Ram Narayan and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2509 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Narayan And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Narayan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyan Prakash Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brijesh Narayan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27.12.2018 and 23.9.2019 passed by the respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

It appears from perusal of the record that an application was filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 before the respondent no.1 for substitution, the same was allowed by the respondent no.1 vide its order dated 27.12.2018.

¶8

It is argued that no reasons were assigned by the respondent no.1 while allowing the aforesaid application and the aforesaid application was allowed only by one word "Allowed". Against the aforesaid order dated 27.12.2018 recall application was filed by the petitioners before the respondent no.1 on 4.4.2019. Apart from the same an application for substitution was also filed by the petitioners on 4.4.2019. An objection to the aforesaid application was duly submitted by the private respondents before the respondent no.1. Ultimately after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, substitution application submitted by the petitioner on 4.4.2019 as well as the application for recall of the order dated 27.12.2018 were rejected by the respondent no.1 vide its order dated 23.9.2019.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the name of the private respondents were substituted due to the Will executed in their favour on 18.1.2017. It is further argued that for cancellation of the aforesaid Will Original Suit No.201 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners in the court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Domariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar and till the time any finding is recorded by the trial court in the aforesaid suite, the respondents are entitled for substitution of their names in the case proceedings.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

From perusal of the record, it is clear that the name of the private respondents were substituted on account of registered Will in their favour. For the cancellation of the aforesaid Will a suit has already been filed by the private respondents, which is still pending. Till the time, a decision has been taken in the aforesaid suit in favour of the petitioners no relief could be granted to them.

¶12

Apart from the same, cogent reasons were duly given by the respondent no.1 while passing the order dated 23.9.2019. It does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Pramod Tripathi

Ram Narayan and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Narayan and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayn Chandra Yadav Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Madhuri Kendurkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Girraj Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Babu Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vishal Vs Consolidation Officer (First) and 3 Others