Smt. Kiran Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Kiran Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; with the aforesaid liberty, the petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to press her objections before respondent No.1, which are to be decided on their own merits as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1 entertaining, at the behest of private respondent No.2 (a person who was not a party to the proceedings), the appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the decree dated 10.11.2023 was sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the matter (including the petitioner's objections) was pending before respondent No.1, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage; liberty was left open to the petitioner to press her objections before respondent No.1, and if pressed, those objections shall be decided by the Court concerned on their own merits as expeditiously as possible.

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that it had not examined the case of either of the parties on merits, and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the objections in the appeal strictly in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 9471 of 2024) DISMISSED. Challenge to the order dated 25.04.2024 of the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division (respondent No.1), whereby an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was entertained at the behest of private respondent No.2 (Jeet Lal), who was not a party to the proceedings, against the decree dated 10.11.2023 in a suit under Section 116 of the Code, 2006, with a direction to maintain status quo and notices issued along with a condonation-of-delay application. The petitioner's objections were already pending before respondent No.1; the High Court declined to interfere at this stage, granted liberty to press the objections, and directed that they be decided on their own merits as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with law. The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73575

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9471 of 2024

Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.9.

Under challenge is the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, 'the Code, 2006') has been entertained by the respondent No.1 at the behest of the privaterespondent No.2.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private-respondent No.4 as plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 wherein the present petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.6. After due contest, the suit came to be decreed on 10.11.2023.

It is urged that thereafter the final decree proceedings were taken and the parties were placed in their respective shares.

In the aforesaid backdrop, the private-respondent No.2 namely Jeet Lal, who is not a party to the proceedings filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 being aggrieved against the order passed on 10.11.2023.

It is urged that the respondent No.1 by means of the order dated 25.04.2024 has directed the parties to maintain status-quo and notices were issued on his appeal along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

It is urged that the said order is bad in the eyes of law and could not have been passed but noticing the parties or without condoning the delay.

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the

petitioner as to whether he has appeared before the appellate Court and filed his objections to which he answered in affirmative and submits that his objections are already engaging the attention of the respondent No.1.

It is in this view of the fact that the matter is pending with the respondent No.1, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage leaving it open for the petitioner to press her objections before the respondent No.1 and needless to say that in case the same is done, the objections of the petitioner shall be decided by the Court concerned on its own merits as expeditiously as possible.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the objections in appeal strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed . Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Rakesh/-

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench