Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Impleadment of subsequent purchaser (Smt. Sarita); restoration of suit dismissed for default; Order 22 Rule 10 — necessary and proper party on transfer/acquisition of interest during pendency; Section 116, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; revision dismissed; Sub Divisional Officer/S.D.M. Balrampur; no interference where suit at preliminary/nascent stage; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 6362 of 2024; Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P.; counsel: Rajeshwar Prasad and Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi (petitioner), C.S.C. (State); decided 29.7.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:51230.
What did the court decide?
In terms of Order 22 Rule 10, Smt. Sarita had acquired rights in the property and was both a necessary and proper party; the order insofar as it allowed her impleadment cannot be faulted. ¶13