Disposed

Ramu (Died) and Others v. Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, 2ND, Lko. Division Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2024/2609/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged conduct of Additional Commissioner Judicial seeking direction to decide recall applications promptly without adjudicating merits at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to move appropriate application in revision; direction issued to Respondent No.1 to decide same expeditiously.

Ramu (Died) and Others Vs Addl… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40098

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2609 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramu (Died) And Others Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, 2nd, Lko. Division Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Yusuf Ansari,Rushida Farheen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 1-Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-II, Lucknow Division Lucknow to decide the application for recall of the ex-parte order dated 20.12.2018 and the application for recall of the order dated 20.08.2022.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that due to some typographical error in the prayer clause of the present petition, date 20.12.2018 has been shown as the date of passing of the ex-parte order whereas it is the date on which application for recall of the ex-parte order dated 11.04.2000 has been preferred. The said recall application dated 20.12.2018 was again dismissed for non prosecution on 10.08.2022 thereafter again a recall application has been moved on 20.08.2022 in Revision No 1642 of 1997-98.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it appears that petitioner is adopting delaying tactics to get the matter not decided for the reason that after 18 years the recall application was preferred by the petitioners for recalling the ex-parte order passed in the year 2000 and on the date fixed, it was not attended so the same was also dismissed for non prosecution and then again an application for recall of the said order has been moved.

¶10

It is further submitted that the petitioners being the respondent/opposite party in the proceedings under Section 34 are unnecessarily harassing the persons, who had filed the mutation case.

¶11

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for disposal of the recall applications in the revision and a direction may be issued to the respondent no. 1 to decide the same within the time

¶12

stipulated by this court.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application in the aforesaid revision for disposal of the recall applications. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 1 shall decide the application preferred by the petitioners expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Ashish

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramu (Died) and Others v. Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, 2ND, Lko. Division Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu (Died) and Others v. Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, 2ND, Lko. Division Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and 6 Others

Ram Sumer Vs Addl. Commissioner Faizabad Mandal Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Others

Shrimati Maryam @ Arshi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Kashi Ram Vs D.D.C. and Ors.

Manju Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Karmaita Vs Nayab Tehsildar Bhadainya Tehsil Lambhua Distt. Sultanpur and Another