Dismissed

Hira Lal v. Board of Revenue U.P.Lko. through Chairman and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024WRIB/1002681/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash orders rejecting restoration applications and mandamus directing re-admission. The court held that restoration is not maintainable if a case is already decided on merits, relying on the Vishnu Agarwal principle, and found no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Cost made easy.

Hira Lal Vs Board of Revenue U.P.Lko… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:318

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1002681 of 2007 Petitioner :- Hira Lal Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P.Lko. Through Chairman And Another

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Saran Nigam,Abhisht Saran,Rahul Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought following main reliefs:-

¶7

"i. To issue a Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 18.01.2007 and 11.08.2006 as contained in Annexures No. 1 and 3 respectively both passed by Opposite Party No. 1.

¶8

ii. To issue a Writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No.1 to re-admit the reference case No.68 L.R. of 96-97 (District Lucknow) Shyam Kali Vs. Hira Lal & Others and dispose the same on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to an the Petitioner in accordance with law."

¶9

Vide order dated 18.01.2007, the Member, Board of Revenue at Lucknow rejected the application for restoration of case after observing that the case was decided on merit on 11.08.2006 as also that the restoration application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.12.2006 and also that the second restoration application has been filed and is meant to harass the parties as well as court. The order dated 18.01.2007 reads as under:-

¶10

"Heard the counsel for the applicant on restoration .An other restoration application of restoration has also been dismissed in default.Since the case has alreday been decided on merit on 11.8.2006 and restoration application was dismissed in default on 11-12-2006 the 2nd restoration has been filed is meant to harrass the parties as well as court. In the light the restoration application is rejected."

¶11

It is apparent from the order dated 11.08.2006 that the same was passed after hearing the counsel for the revisionist and the side opposite by the Member, Board of Revenue at Lucknow in Case No.68 of 96-97, (Shyam Kali vs. Hiralal and others), and the same is on merits. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinunder:-

¶12

" यह ननिगररानिनी श्यराम कलनी बनिराम हनीररालराल आनद, सददंरर आददेश नदनिरादंक 25-6-97 पर

¶13

आधराररत हहै। इस सदंबदंध मम ्ቚनतपकनी कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा ककी ओर सदे पपुनिनः यह आविेनि प्ቔ रदेजरा द गयरा हहै नक पपुनिनः समय ्ቚदरानि नकयरा जराए। ननिगररानिनीकतरार कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा निदे इस पर कडनी

¶14

आपधቈኌ नकयरा और कहरा नक ्ቚनतपकनी कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा इस पपुररानिदे विराद कको लटकराए रखनिदे कदे धलए, उसकदे पपूविर कई बरार समय ककी मरादंग कर चपुकदे हह और न्यरायरालय निदे कई बरार समय रनी नदयरा हहै। अतनः ्ቚराररनिराप्ቔ कको ननिरस्त नकयरा जराए। प्ቔराविलनी कदे अविलकोकनि सदे यह धस्ቍ हहै नक ्ቚनतपकनी कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा कको पहलदे रनी कई बरार समय ्ቚदरानि नकयरा गयरा हहै और अब पपुनिनः ्ቚराररनिराप्ቔ रदेजकर समय ककी मरादंग कर मरामलदे कको लटकराए रखनिदे ककी ्ቚविवृधቈኌ करा दकोतक हहै तररा यह कवृत न्यरानयक करायर कको बराधधत करनिदे विरालरा हहै। अतनः ननिगररानिनीकतरार कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा ककी आपधቈኌ मम बल परातदे हहए ्ቚनतपकनी कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा कदे ्ቚराररनिराप्ቔ कको ननिरस्त करतदे हहए एकपकनीय ननिररय लदेतदे हहए ननिगररानिनीकतरार कदे नविदरानि अधधविकरा कको सपुनिरा गयरा। उन्होሻनिदे अपनिदे तकर मम यह कहरा नक मपूल रपूनमधर श्यरामलराल ककी मवृत्यपु नदनिरादंक 19-11-85 कको हकोनिदे पर उसककी पपु्ቔनी निदे पदंजनीकवृत विसनीयत कदे आधरार पर निरामरान्तरर ्ቚराररनिराप्ቔ नदयरा धजसमम दपुलरारदे जको श्यरामलराल करा रराई हहै, निदे आपधቈኌ ्ቚस्तपुत कर कहरा नक कधरत विसनीयत तररा श्यरामकलनी ककी पपु्ቔनी हकोनिदे ककी बरात सहनी निहह हहै। यह नक दकोनिोሻ हरानशयरा गविराहोሻ निे नि कद ेविल विसनीयत कको धस्ቍ नकयरा बललक श्यरामकलनी कको पपु्ቔनीद हकोनिे रनी धस्ቍ नकयरा धजसकद े आधरार पर निरामराद न्तरर आदेश पराररत हहआ धजसद े अपनीलनीयद न्यरायरालय निे गलत ढद ंग सद े ननिरस्त कर नदयरा धजसकद े नविरु्ቍ धराररा द 218 एल. आर. एक्ट ककी ननिगररानिनी ्ቚस्तपुत ककी गयनी धजसके लद ंनबत रहनिद े कद े ददौररानि ्ቚनतपकनी निद े उसद े उसकद े नपतरा कद े घर सद ेद बेखल करनि द े करा ्ቚयरास नकयरा। धजसकद े सद ंबद ंध मद धसनविल विराद सम ंख्यरा द 268/1993 ्ቚस्तपुत नकयरा गयरा और इस विराद म रनी उसककी पपु्ቔनी हकोनिरा धस्ቍ हम ै और यह नक धसनविल ह न्यरायलय करा आदेश अलद न्तम हको चपुकरा है धजसककी ्ቚनत रनी ननिगररानिनी मह ्ቚस्तपुत ककी गयनी हम ै। ह अतनः संरर आददेश द ककी सदंस्तपुनतयोሻ कको स्विनीकरार नकयरा जराए। ्ቚनतपकनी स्वियदं न्यरायरालय मम उपलस्रत ररा धजसकको अपनिरा पक रखनिदे करा अविसर ्ቚदरानि नकयरा गयरा। उसनिदे अपनिरा पक रखतदे हहए कहरा नक ननिगररानिनीकतरार सकोहनि लराल ककी पपु्ቔनी हहै, श्यरामलराल ककी हहै और यह नक श्यराम लराल नदनिरादंक 2- 11-05 कको मरदे जबनक विसनीयत नदनिरादंक 11-11-85 ककी हहै और यह नक स्रल ननिरनीकर कर विरास्तनविकतरा ककी जरानिकरारनी ककी जरा सकतनी हहै।

¶15

ननिगररानिनीकतरा कर े नविदरानि अधधविकरा एविद ं ्ቚनतपकनी दराररा ्ቚस्तपुत अपनिराद अपनिरा पक कको सपुनिनिेद, नविविरानदत आदेश सदद ंरद आदर ेशद , सरनी सपुसंगत अनरलद ेख एविद ं सपुसद ंगत विद ैधराननिक ्ቚरानविधरानिोሻ कह ेद अविलकोकनि से यह ननिद ष्कर ननिकलतरा हर ै नक पह ंजनीकवृत विसनीयत सद ं द ेह सद े परद े धस्ቍ हद ै। अतह नः संर द र 3-4-89 आदेश मद ककी गयनी सम ंस्तपुनतयोሻ कको स्विनीकरार करतद े हहए आदद ेश नदनिराद ंक द कको ननिरस्त 24-6-88 " नकयरा जरातरा है एविह ं आदद ेश नदनिराद ंक द ककी पपुनቖኌ ककी जरातनी है।ह

¶16

It is settled principle of law that the application for restoration would not be maintainable if a case is decided on merit after hearing the parties. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 813 . Thus, the order dated 18.01.2007 is not liable to be interfered by this Court

¶17

So far as the order dated 11.08.2006 is concerned, this Court finds from the recitals of order dated 11.08.2006 that this order was passed after considering the fact that the 'Will' was proved by two attesting

¶18

witnesses and the order of civil court passed in Suit No.268 of 1993 and being so the order dated 11.08.2006 is also not liable to be interfered by this Court.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . Cost made easy.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.1.2024/Raj

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hira Lal v. Board of Revenue U.P.Lko. through Chairman and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hira Lal v. Board of Revenue U.P.Lko. through Chairman and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.P. College of Pharmacy Thru. Anil Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Addl. Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education and 3 Others

Lakshya College of Advance Education Thru. Manager Anurag Kumar Dhampur Bijnor and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Rama Devi and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others

Ram Achal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich and 6 Ors.

Ram Asrey and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Kamlesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others