The court declined to quash restoration/recall applications filed 27 years after an impugned status quo order, holding that the mere filing does not cause legal injury until decided. The petition was consigned to record.
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:134797
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22576 of 2024
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Ravindra Nath Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Shri Abhishek Yadav, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Shri Awadesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1. Notice on behalf of respondent no.2 has been accepted by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi.
The case of the writ petitioners is that his father instituted a suit purported to be original Suit No.742 of 1997 against the State regarding obstructions and hindrances in this regard in which on 13.05.1998 status quo order was passed. According to the writ petitioner, during the pendency of the said suit, impleadment applications by the strangers were filed which came to be rejected, however, now after a period of 27 years i.e. on 18.08.2022 a restoration application/recall application has been preferred for recalling the order dated 13.05.1998 which according to the writ petitioners, is nothing but the grocess misuse of process of law in impunity.
Primarily, the prayer made in the petition is for quashing the entire proceedings relatable to filing of the restoration/recall application.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha submits that mere filing or pendency of the restoration/recall application would not be of much relevance, particularly, once the same has not decided against the writ petitioner, according to him, it is for the writ petitioner to contest the same by truth and nail on merits.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I find myself unable to subscribe to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, for the simple reasons that it is always open for a party to prefer a recall application and that would not be create any legal injury,
particularly, when the same has not been decided against the writ petitioners, in case, the same stands allowed then legal avenues are open for the writ petitioners for challenging the same .
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands consigned to record .
Order Date :- 21.8.2024 A. Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a restoration/recall application filed 27 years after an order creates legal injury merely by its pendency?
Arvind Kumar Yadav And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
