In a writ petition challenging the admission of a second appeal and an interim order by the Second Appellate Court regarding limitation and third party rights, the High Court rejected the petitioner's submissions and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60536
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 887 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jhinka Devi And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 5-Gram Panchayat.
In view of the order proposed by the Court, notice to the proposed respondent nos. 3 and 4 is dispensed with.
Under challenge is the order of admission passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal dated 16.05.2024.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in proceedings emanating under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The suit came to be dismissed against which a hugely time barred appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against which the second appeal was preferred.
The Second Appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant has framed substantial questions of law and while admitting and calling for the records have also passed an interim order that third party rights may not be created.
The further submission is that since the first appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the only issue before the Second Appellate Court was in respect of whether the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rightly or wrongly rejected. There was no merit to be touched before the Second Appellate Court as it only had to inquire regarding the sufficiency of cause.
In such circumstances, the Second Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to pass an interim order directing the parties not to
create any third party rights.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners this Court observed that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is noted only to be rejected. Once, the Second Appellate Court has found that there was a substantial question of law upon which it had admitted the appeal then it had all the powers to pass appropriate orders as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. The petitioner shall be at liberty of appearing before the Second Appellate Court to make his submissions but this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition which is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 2.9.2024 Asheesh
Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to pass an interim order regarding third party rights when hearing an appeal based on time-barred grounds.
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the interim order of the Second Appellate Court regarding limitation issues.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jhinka Devi And Others
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow And Others
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
