Dismissed

Abdul Alim v. Salim Ali and Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022A227/74/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in Writ Petition challenging lower court orders dismissing a revision and recall application. Court held no jurisdictional error or perversity existed, dismissed the petition. Ordered substitution in a separate civil substitution application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner petition dismissed; no relief granted against impugned orders. Substitution ordered in separate application.

Abdul Alim Vs Salim Ali and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 74 of 2009

¶3

Petitioner :- Abdul Alim Respondent :- Salim Ali And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan,J.H. Khan,W.H. Khan Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Order on Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 190966 of 2013

¶6

Application is within time.

¶7

Application is allowed .

¶8

Office is directed to carry out appropriate substitution in relation to sole petitioner within a week as stated in the prayer clause of the application.

¶9

Order on Memo of Writ Petition

¶10

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as "Revisional Court") dismissing in default the revision filed by the plaintiff/petitioner as well as against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the recall/restoration application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.

¶11

The plaintiff/petitioner filed Original Suit No. 307 of 1998 against the opposite parties praying for eviction of the defendants/opposite parties from the suit property and also for arrears of rent. The suit was filed before the Civil

¶12

Judge, Junior Division, Jhansi and not before the Small Causes Court for the reason that defendants had denied the title of the plaintiff/petitioner over the suit property. The suit was valued for the aforesaid relief and court fees was paid accordingly. The defendants/opposite parties filed their written statements denying the averments made in the plaint and also raised objections regarding the valuation of the suit. An issue was framed by the trial court regarding valuation of the suit and the trial court vide its order dated 25.07.2000 held that the suit had to be valued on the market value of the property as dispute regarding the title of the suit property was involved in the case.

¶13

Against the order dated 25.07.2000, the plaintiff/petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 101 of 2000. The said revision was dismissed in default vide order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the Revisional Court. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 01.03.2007 and to restore the revision to its original number and file on 10.05.2007. The recall application was time barred and therefore, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed by the plaintiff/petitioner praying to condone the delay in filing the recall application. On the said application, Misc. Case No. 13 of 2007 was registered in the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court vide its order dated 13.10.2008 dismissed Misc. Case No. 13 of 2007 and rejected the recall application as well as delay condonation application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.

¶14

The recall application of the plaintiff/petitioner has been rejected by the Revisional Court on the ground that the

¶15

petitioner had not properly explained the delay in filing the said application and has not stated as to when he came to know about the order dated 01.03.2007 from his counsel. In the order dated 13.10.2008, the Revisional Court has taken note of the fact that important facts necessary to decide the delay condonation application and the recall application have not been stated in the applications or the affidavits filed in support of the same and the revisionist/petitioner has only made ambiguous and wague statements in support of his prayers.

¶16

There is no jurisdictional error in the orders dated 25.07.2000 and 13.10.2008. The petitioner had not appeared when the revision was called out for hearing. The orders have been passed after considering the relevant materials and evidence on record. There is no perversity in the orders passed by the Revisional Court so as to occasion interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 Nirmal Sinha

¶19

Digitally signed by NIRMAL SINHA Date: 2022.02.18 14:14:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Alim v. Salim Ali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Alim v. Salim Ali 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

Bhagwandin Vs Phoolkali and 5 Others

Vinod Kumar Sharma and another Vs Umashankar Pandey and another

Smt. Janaki Devi and Others Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs Purushottam

Mritunjay Kumar Pandey Vs Manjari Pandey

Gulab Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh