This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order fixing evidence dates after rejecting a preliminary application. The court held the impugned order was not illegal and the writ had no merit.
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. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23449 of 2022
Petitioner :- Daya Ram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh,Narendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. K. K. Mani for respondent No.3
The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.07.2020 and 26.04.2022 passed by respondent No.2 in the suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 has been rejected and the date was fixed for evidence of parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that controversy has already adjudicated in the suit under Section 229B and the present suit is barred by limitation, but the application filed by the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the courts below.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
In the trial court, the following issues were framed:
The trial court while rejecting the petitioner's application to decide the issue Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues has held that application is not maintainable and fixed the case for evidence of parties. Since the date for evidence of the parties has already been fixed, as such issue Nos.3 ad 4 shall be decided after evidence. There is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference is required against the impugned order.
The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.9.2022 PS*
2
Digitally signed by PRITI SHARMA Date: 2022.09.15 18:21:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is required in an order rejecting a maintenance application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC during a suit.
Whether the petitioner's application for rejection of a suit under Section 229 of U.P. VAT Act is barred by limitation.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Daya Ram Singh
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Chandra Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
