Dismissed

Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024WRIC/6362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing the impleadment of Smt. Sarita and the restoration of a civil suit to its original number under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, holding that the decision was without merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no occasion for interference with the impugned order.

Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51230

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6362 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Prasad,Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 23.01.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected upholding the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Balrampur in proceedings arising under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.3 as well as the revisional authority have erred in allowing the application for impleadment and restored the said suit to its original number.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record, it would indicate that proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated by the petitioner before this Court.

¶11

During the pendency of the proceedings, the property-inquestion has been purchased by Smt. Sarita from the private respondent nos.5 and 6. In the aforesaid contest while the suit had been dismissed for default, an application for restoration was moved and so also Smt. Sarita moved an application for impleadment. The S.D.M concerned by means of order dated 02.02.2023 restored the suit to its original number and has also allowed the application for impleadment of Smt. Sarita noticing that the original defendant nos.2 and 3 (who are private respondent nos.5 and 6) had executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Sarita and all her rights were now involved.

¶12

It also noted that the suit is at preliminary stage and no prejudice is going to be caused. In such circumstances, both the

¶13

applications were allowed against which the petitioner has preferred revision which was dismissed. In light of the aforesaid, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Order 22 Rule 10, Smt. Sarita had acquired right and she was both necessary and proper party to that extent, the order in so far as it allowed the impleadment cannot be the faulted.

¶14

Even otherwise, the suit has been restored to its original number and it is not disputed that the matter has not proceeding on merit and it is still in the nascent stage.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the matter. The petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Harshita

¶17

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

Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nand Ram Verma and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Sushil Kumar Singh and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Mohammad Bashshar Vs Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs C.C.S.I Lko. Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector

Rooplal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, and 3 Others

Tamseel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Anubhag Lko.

Suresh Chandra vs Learned Additional Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya and 3 Others