Allowed

Ram Roop and Another v. Deo Nayak

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous review application. The Court modified paragraph 20 of a prior judgment in the underlying writ petition to specify that the impugned orders were interfered with only to the extent that they did not provide for a merits-based trial. The review application was allowed accordingly, leaving the rest of the judgment intact.

What did the court decide?

Review application allowed; underlying judgment paragraph 20 modified to state writ petition was partly allowed; orders dated 28.06.2023 and 07.12.2023 interfered only to ensure merits trial; suit res

Ram Roop and Another Vs Deo Nayak — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19684

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 11 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Roop And Another Opposite Party :- Deo Nayak Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Pande,Avneesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mohan Singh,Brajesh Kumar Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.S.Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avneesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the reviewapplicant as also Sri Brajesh Kumar Chaudhari, learned counsel for the private opposite party-Dev Nayak Mishra.

¶7

Present review application has been filed in relation to the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024 passed by this Court in Writ - B No. 57 of 2024 (Deo Nayak vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Others).

¶8

Considering the undisputed facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as also taking note of Para 19 and 20 of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024, under review, this Court finds that clarification/modification in Para 20 of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024, under review is required and there is no need to summon the record of Writ - B No. 57 of 2024 (Deo Nayak vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. & Others).

¶9

Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024, under review, are extracted hereinunder:-

¶10

"19. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that the order(s) dated 28.06.2023 and 07.12.2023 are liable to be interfered with only to the extent that the suit be heard and decided on merits strictly as per law and after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶11

20. Accordingly, the present writ petition is party allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing and setting the aside the order(s) dated 28.06.2023 and 07.12.2023, certified copies of which are Annexure Nos. 14 and 15 to the petition, respectively. The suit is restored to its original number. The revenue Court of first instance i.e. SDO concerned is directed to decide the suit in issue on merits."

¶12

It is not in dispute that this Court, on 19.01.2024 after considering the material available on record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties namely

¶13

Sri R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate as also Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, specifically observed that the order(s) impugned in the petition i.e. 28.06.2023 and 07.12.2023 are liable to be interfered with only to the extent that the suit be heard and decided on merits strictly as per law and a perusal of Para 20 indicates that both the order(s) dated 28.06.2023 and 07.12.2023 have been quashed.

¶14

Accordingly, Para 20 of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024, under review, shall be read and complied with as under:-

¶15

"Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The order(s) dated 28.06.2023 and 07.12.2023 are interfered with by this Court only to the extent that the same did not provide that the suit be heard and decided on merits strictly as per law. The suit is restored to its original number. The revenue Court of first instance i.e. S.D.O. concerned shall decide the suit in issue on merits."

¶16

Remaining contents of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024, under review, shall remain intact.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the review application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 Vinay/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Roop and Another v. Deo Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Roop and Another v. Deo Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kewal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 17 Others

Smt. Jagrani and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Hardoi and 2 Others

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sher Singh and 25 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko. and 15 Others

Hari Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko. and 5 Others

Babu and 2 Others Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Ram Nagar Barabanki and 4 Others