Dismissed

Smt. Kiran v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024WRIC/9471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an appellate order maintaining status-quo and issuing notices in a case involving a suit under the U.P. Revenue Code. The High Court held the matter pending before the appellate court and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with liberty to press objections before the appellate court.

Smt. Kiran vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

Smt. Kiran v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kiran v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Laxhmi Vs Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Milkipur, Faizabad and Another

Kanhaiya Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao and Others

Keshav Prasad and Others Vs Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and Others

Uday Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Smt. Bilkis Begum vs Rajasya Parishad, U.P., Lko. Thru. Adhyachh and Others

Kallu @ Manish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.