Jagtar Singh and 2 Others v. Nazibul Rahim Khan and 7 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025A227/6776/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside a District Judge's revision decision that had set aside the trial court's rejection of a defendant's Order IX Rule 13 application to reverse an ex-parte decree cancelling a 1995 sale deed. The High Court issued notice to respondents and stayed compliance with the revision order pending hearing on 06.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Compliance of the order dated 18.09.2025 stayed till next date of listing; notice issued to respondents; matter listed on 06.01.2026.

Jagtar Singh and 2 Others vs Nazibul Rahim Khan and 7… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6776 of 2025

¶3

Jagtar Singh And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Nazibul Rahim Khan And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shishir Chandra, Vishnu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 19

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶12

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No.1), Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Revision No.33 of 2024 (Nazibul Rahim Khan versus Jagtar Singh & ors.).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Regular Suit No.259 of 2001 'Smt. Khatoon Jahan & others versus Nakibul Rahim & others', was decided on 01.04.2015 by an ex-parte judgment, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with cost and the sale deed in question dated 06.06.1995, purportedly executed by Smt. Khatoon Jahan in favour of Smt. Kulwant Singh was cancelled. The defendant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte judgment alongwith an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial court rejected the application for condonation of delay by an order dated 19.09.2024 on the grounds that the application had been filed belatedly after nine years when the case was proceeded ex-parte against the defendant.

¶14

The defendant-applicant feeling aggrieved by the said order filed a Civil Revision before this Court and that the Civil Revision before the court of District Judge which was allowed on 18.09.2025 with certain

¶15

A227 No. 6776 of 2025

¶16

¶17

observations in paragraphs 12 and 13 and order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned trial court was set aside and the trial court was directed to hear the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh, in the light of the analysis made in the judgment.

¶18

Matter requires consideration.

¶19

Issued notice to respondents through District Judge concerned.

¶20

Steps be taken within a week.

¶21

List on 06.01.2026.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, the compliance of the order dated 18.09.2025 shall remain stayed.

¶23

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶24

November 19, 2025

¶25

Mohd. Sharif

¶26

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

Jagtar Singh and 2 Others v. Nazibul Rahim Khan and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagtar Singh and 2 Others v. Nazibul Rahim Khan and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shivji Virajman Mandir thru. Jitendranandra @ Jitendra Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Raebareli and another

Prithvi Pal vs Smt. Ranjana Awasthi and 3 Others

Sri Krishna College of Educational Fariha Thru. Secy. Harishit Yadav and 13 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Lko.

Shyam Murat vs Alok Kumar Mishra and 2 Others

Hari Bhajan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Shyam Lal and Others vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and Others