Dismissed

Sunita Jain v. the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Pauri

Uttarakhand HC15 Dec 2021WPMS/2693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a review application challenging an order expediting a partition suit. The review petitioner contended that returning records without resolving pending revisions would cause delay. The Court held the original order was expeditious and dismissed the review as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Review Application dismissed; petitioner at liberty to move Commissioner for disposal of revisions.

Sunita Jain Vs the Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

Review Application No. 2 of 2022

¶4

¶5

Writ Petition No. (M/S) 2693 of 2021

¶6

Sunita Jain & Anr. ..….Petitioners

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal & Ors.

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

Present:

¶11

Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary and Mr. Nandan Arya, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

¶13

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶14

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

¶15

Date of hearing and order: 29.06.2022

¶16

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is respondent in the review application.

¶17

By virtue of filing this application, the respondent in WPMS No. 2693 of 2021, sought review of the order passed by us on dated 15.12.2021, directing the Assistant Collector, 1^st Class/SDM, Haridwar, to proceed with the partition suit and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months. It was brought to our notice that at that time, against such order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, 1^st Class/ SDM, Haridwar, revisions were preferred before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. The learned Commissioner, though, did not pass any order of stay,

¶18

¶19

called for the original records pending before the learned Assistant Commissioner 1^st Class/ SDM, Haridwar, thereby effectively staying further proceedings of the partition suit. Since, such fact was brought to us, this Court without issuing notice disposed of the same by taking recourse to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 340 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary to call for the lower court records or trial court records rather copies of the record should be called for.

¶20

Now, the review petitioner is aggrieved by such innocuous order directing the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, to sent back the original records to the court of learned Assistant Collector 1^st Class/ SDM, Haridwar, so that the matter can be taken up for final disposal, as there is no order of stay passed by the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal.

¶21

The learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that a direction be given to the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, to dispose of the revisions applications pending before it and then further direction be passed that only after disposal of the revisions suit should be heard on merit.

¶22

This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner as no stay order has been passed by the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal upon hearing

¶23

¶24

the petitioner on merit; secondly, by passing the order as has been suggested by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, effectively stay order would be passed by us which is not permissible in view of the fact that as yet petitioner has not approached the Court against the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, either refusing to grant stay order and not considered his application for stay order.

¶25

We do not find any merit in the review application. The order passed by us expediting the trial of the case and directing the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, to return the original records to the trial court by keeping scanned photo copy of the records in pursuance to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd (supra).

¶26

In that view of the matter, the review application is dismissed, being devoid of merit. However, the review petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, for expeditious disposal of the revisions filed by him in view of the order passed by us.

¶27

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

¶28

Sunita Jain v. the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Pauri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Jain v. the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Pauri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bache Ram Vs State of U.P

Shishir Singh Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Avtar Singh Fateh Singh through Its Proprietor Vs Vinay Kumar Agarwal

Ratan Singh Vs Nakli Singh

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax Vs Bablu

Sumedh Saini Vs Assistant Collector 1ST Class Haridwar