Ram Ujagir Vs Joint Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 14 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Ram Ujagir Vs Joint Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 14 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 30.05.2024 suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record in that it quashed an order dated 25.05.1987 which, according to the review applicant, does not exist. +2 more

Court's answer

The submission that the Court quashed a non-existent order dated 25.05.1987 is not accepted: the year was a typographical error and the correct date of the quashed order is 25.05.1985; the judgment is corrected accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

The adoptive mother's participation in the adoption rituals could not be admitted as her consent, as mere presence cannot be termed as consent, in pursuance of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon in the judgment dated 30.05.2024; the review ground on this aspect therefore fails.

Key takeaways

A review application is not an opportunity for re-hearing of the case; the contention that the applicant has more points to argue and may cite further case laws is not admitted.ratio¶13
There is no apparent error on the face of the record; the review petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Application dismissed — No apparent error on the face of the record — Review sought of judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 in Writ-B No. 3587 of 1985 (Triloki Nath vs Joint Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and others) — Ground that the Court quashed a non-existent order dated 25.05.1987 rejected: the year was a typographical error, the correct date of the quashed order being 25.05.1985, and the judgment corrected accordingly — Objection that the adoptive mother (wife of Shri Nawal Kishore Pandey, deceased 1979) participated in the adoption rituals rejected: mere presence/participation in rituals cannot be termed consent, in pursuance of the Supreme Court judgment relied on in the judgment dated 30.05.2024 — Review is not an opportunity of re-hearing; further points and case laws not entertained.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49094

Court No. - 19

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 81 of 2024

Applicant :- Ram Ujagir Opposite Party :- Joint Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur And 14 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh,Raj Mani Dubey

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Supplementary afÏdavit filed by leaned counsel for review applicant is taken on record.

The present review petition has been preferred for review of the judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Writ-B No. 3587 of 1985 titled as Triloki Nath vs Joint Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and others.

Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for review applicant, who was respondent no. 3 in the writ petition has submitted that earlier counsel representing respondent no. 3, had not argued the case fully and left relevant submissions to be argued, as the earlier counsel Shri Raj Mani Dubey is a standing counsel, hence the review petition has been preferred by him admitting that he had neither argued nor he was present at the time of hearing of the case.

It is further submitted that the order is under review for the reason that there was no such order dated 25.05.1987 which has been quashed by this Court in its judgment dated 30.05.2024. The said submission of the learned counsel for review applicant is not accepted for the reason that due to typographical error, in the last part of the order, the year has wrongly been shown, whereas the correct date of the order is 25.05.1985 and not 25.05.1987, hence the same is to be and is hereby corrected as 1985 in place of 1987.

The other submission of learned counsel for review applicant that the wife of Shri Nawal Kishore Pandey, who had adopted Ram Ujagir, till her death in the year 1979 had not raised any objection against the adoption and participated in the adoption proceedings. This aspect has already been elaborately dealt with and discussed in the judgment dated 30.05.2024 that she had participated in the rituals, but it could not be admitted as her consent as mere her presence cannot be termed as consent, in pursuance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for review applicant has further submitted that he has more points to be argued and he

may cite certain case laws on the same after searching the same.

The said contention of learned counsel for review applicant is not admitted as the review application is not an opportunity of re-hearing of the case.

In view of the above, there is no apparent error on the face of record. The review petition is devoid of merit hence dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 DiVYa

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench