Dismissed

Ram Pher v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner opposed condonation of 14 months delay in a revision petition under U.P. Consolidation Act. Single Judge held no illegality and dismissed writ, allowing grounds to be raised in revision if not admitted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner may raise grounds of non-maintainability before the revisional court if already fixed for hearing on admission.

Ram Pher Vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 49 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Pher

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Distt. Gonda And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Bahadur Verma,Durgesh Kumar Verma

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶8

The case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

¶9

Shri Viay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 are present and perused the record.

¶10

Instant writ petition has been moved by petitioner with the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.12.2021 by the Deputy Director Consolidation , Gonda passed in Revision No. 455 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation set, Ram Bharose Vs. Ram Pher, Village Chatauni, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda, whereby the application moved by the respondent no.3 for condonation of delay has been allowed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised many submissions and has taken the Court through various documents filed with the petition in order to show that the revisionist before the court below was not having any case on merits and therefore the revisional court by passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 has committed manifest illegality in condoning the delay and therefore the order of the revisional court dated 20.12.2021 is patently absurd and could not be sustained.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2, however submits that by passing impugned order only a delay of 14 months in preferring the revision petition has been condoned by the court below and still the revision has not been admitted and therefore the petitioner is not aggrieved by the impugned order as no finding has been recorded by the court below on merits and so much so revision has still not been admitted for hearing.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what transpires from the record is that the revision was preferred by the respondent no.3 before the

¶14

respondent no.1 in the year 2016, precisely on 22.2.2016 against the order dated 29.1.2013 and 8.12.2014 of the subordinate court along with an application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The ground which was taken for condoning the delay was to the tune that respondent no.3 had given the relevant papers to his Advocate engaged at the subordinate court but due to carelessness of the Advocate the revision could not be filed in time and considering this, though detailed reasons have not been recorded by revisional court, but it was inclined to condone the delay. There cannot be any doubt in the proposition that assigning reasons in order to arrive at a finding is the life and soul of any judicial order but at this stage it is transpired from the record that only 14 months delay has been condoned by the respondent no.1 taking into consideration the plea of the respondent no.3 that though he has instructed his counsel to file revision but it was only due to fault of his counsel engaged at the subordinate court the revision could not be filed within time. It is to be recalled that the revisional court has still not admitted the revision petition and a date was fixed for the purpose and the petitioner could have raised all the issues pertaining tot he factual aspect as well as with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition. Still the revision petition is required to be admitted (if not already admitted) and disposed of after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. No rights have been decided by the revisional court by passing impugned order.

¶15

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that only 14 months delay has been condoned which was sufficiently explained, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by respondent no.1 and thus the petition moved on behalf of the petitioner appears to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such.

¶16

However, the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from taking all such grounds as he may take before the revisional court in order to show that the revision petition is not maintainable, if the revision petition is still fixed for hearing on admission and has already not been admitted,.

¶17

Need not to say that if any such ground is taken before the revisional court i.e. respondent no.1 he will have to consider the same and pass appropriate and reasoned order.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Muk

Ram Pher v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pher v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Gonda and 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

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow and Others

Rafi Ahmad Kidwai School Hardoi through Manager and Ors. Vs Km. Rohini

Smt. Renu Kanaujiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lovlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru.Collector Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Surya Prakash Singh S/O Late Ambika Baksh Singh Vs Shekhar Chaudhari S/O Chhote Lal Chaudhari and Ors.

Smt. Swapnal Mishra Vs Saurabh Mishra