Dismissed

Brijraj and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023CMRA/131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous review application was dismissed as misconceived. The court held that new counsels cannot raise factual positions or challenge categorical findings regarding property title that were not presented in the original arguing, as rehearing is impermissible under CPC Order 47 Rule 1.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed as misconceived for being filed by new counsels seeking rehearing of factual issues not previously raised.

Brijraj and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 131 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Brijraj And 26 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mansoor Ahmad,Hira Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Sri Panchu Ram Maurya and Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, learned Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4.

¶6

This review application has been filed through Sri Mansoor Ahmad and Sri Hira Lal, two new counsels engaged by the petitioners/review applicants, to assert that the factual position with regard to the title of the petitioners/review applicants in the property in dispute could not be brought before the Court when the matter was argued. It is, thus, submitted that the rejection of claim of the petitioners by means of the judgment under review is a result of error apparent on the face of the record.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the review applicants cannot be entertained for two reasons. Firstly, that the review application has not been filed by the counsel who had argued the matter on 02.02.2023. Secondly, there is a categorical finding recorded in the order under review that the claim of the petitioners that the will deed dated 31.12.1991 was a forged and fabricated document cannot be entertained as the validity of the said will deed has never been challenged before any Court of law. It was noted therein that the petitioners had not been able to establish their right, title and interest in the land in question with respect to which the compensation has been paid to respondent No.4. This finding returned in the judgment under review cannot be allowed to be assailed by the new counsels, who argued the matter today, as rehearing is not permissible within the scope of the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶8

The review application is, accordingly, dismissed as misconceived.

¶9

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 P Kesari

¶10

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijraj and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijraj and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Jiwan Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devanand Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Arun Tyagi and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary School and Another Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Smt.Santosh Semwal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwati Prasad @ Bhabuti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others