Govind Ballabh vs Anil Kumar and 6 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27899

Court No. - 68

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 5 of 2025

Applicant :- Govind Ballabh Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Vishwakarma,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh,Prashant Shukla,Shivanand Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the Review Applicant/ Writ Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

¶7

The instant Review Application at the instance of the applicant/ writ petitioner has been filed seeking a review of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court modifying its earlier order dated 18.07.2024.

¶8

This Court vide its order dated 18.07.2024 after recording the contention of the applicant/ writ petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, while issuing notice to the contesting respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and calling for a counter affidavit from the respondents had stayed the effect and operation of the order impugned dated 28.05.2024 passed in Revision No. 1096 of 2024 till the next date of listing.

¶9

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 put in appearance in the proceedings through Shri Prashant Shukla and sought modification of the order dated 18.07.2024 on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 38 (2) of the Revenue Code 2006 the writ petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sale dated 04.04.2023 in respect of the property in question and also accepted down payment. Besides Sale Deeds dated 09.09.2024 have also been executed in favour of third parties. The factum of execution of the Agreement to Sale and the Sale Deeds having not been disputed this Court with a view to preserve the property subject matter of the writ petition modified its order dated 18.07.2024 and directed parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature and possession of the disputed property and restrained them from creating any third party rights in respect thereof vide order dated 30.09.2024.

¶10

The review of the order dated 30.09.2024 has essentially been sought on the ground that the modification had been sought by stating incorrect facts in as much as it was alleged in the modification application that the agreement to Sell was got executed during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 38 (2) of the Revenue Code

¶11

whereas, the correct fact is that the proceedings under Section 38 (2) of the Revenue Code, 2006 were instituted on 12.06.2023 subsequent to the execution of the agreement to Sell dated 04.04.2023. Various other factual aspects have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Review Application touching the merits of the controversy. This Court is not inclined to dwell into such factual aspects in view of the fact that the writ petition is still pending and pleadings are yet to be exchanged. The Court however finds that the review Applicant/ writ petitioner was heard while considering the modification application and the factum of execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.2023 and Sale Deed dated 09.09.2024 (which was admittedly during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 38 (2) of the Revenue Code, 2006 was not disputed). This Court with a view to preserve the property in dispute had proceeded to modify its earlier order vide order dated 30.09.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Review Applicant/ writ petitioner vehemently contends that the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court modifying its earlier order dated 18.07.2024 is seriously prejudicing the applicant/ writ petitioner in as much as though Counter and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioner and the State respondents but, no counter has yet been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents 1 and 2 which is hampering the progress of the case.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record the Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would stand subserved if one more opportunity of filing counter affidavit is granted to the contesting respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and the effect and operation of the order dated 30.09.2024 is limited and the order dated 30.09.2024 is modified to that extent.

¶14

Accordingly, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are granted two weeks further time to file counter affidavit. One week thereafter is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo as regards the nature and possession of the disputed property and no further third party rights shall be created in respect thereof till the next date of listing. The order dated 30.09.2024 stands reviewed accordingly.

¶15

The review application stand disposed off in terms above.

¶16

List the writ petition before appropriate Court after three weeks.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Deepak/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Govind Ballabh v. Anil Kumar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Ballabh v. Anil Kumar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madan Prakash Alias Bablu vs State of U.P.

Rahul Jaiswal vs State of U.P.

Ankit Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Pammi vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra vs State of U.P.

Ratan Kumar Sonkar vs State of U.P.