Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Awadhesh Rai & Others vs Additional Commissioner (Food) ... on 3 August, 2010
(19) Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Indrajeet Shukla, on the other hand, in his reply has submitted that this Court in Awadhesh Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner and Others Writ-C 13751 of 2005 decided on 04.08.2017 has mentioned. The exceptions where this Court can interfere even in orders passed in mutation proceedings. It has been observed by this Court that where an order has been passed without jurisdiction or that it confers rights against the settled position in law, an order passed in mutation proceedings can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Vijay Shankar vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration) ... on 9 February, 2015
(20) Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized the third and fourth grounds mentioned in Vijay Shanker (Supra) available for the writ petitioners to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction against the order passed in mutation proceedings.
Jaskirat Datwani vs Vidyavati & Ors on 3 May, 2002
The Supreme Court observed on the basis of the judgment rendered by Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati & Ors. reported in [2002 (5) SCC 647], that even if no step is taken by assignee, suit may be continued by the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by the decree, particularly when such party had the knowledge of the proceedings and still failed to file any application for being heard.
Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar & Anr on 17 December, 2004
(9) This Court perused the judgment in Bhanu Kumar Jain (Supra) Paragraph 26 of the judgment rendered in Bhanu Kumar Jain (Supra), the Supreme Court had observed that a party aggrieved against the ex-parte decree has two clear options, one, to file an Appeal and another to file an application for setting aside the order in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. He can take recourse to both the proceedings simultaneously but in the event the Appeal is dismissed as a result whereof the ex-parte decree passed by the Trial Court merges with the order passed with the order passed by the Appellate Court, having regard to Explanation appended to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 would not be maintainable.
Section 33 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kamal Kishore Patel vs Puran Lal Jatwar And Ors. 18 ... on 15 March, 2019
(12) Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Waris Farooqui has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3. He has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition saying that the said writ petition arises out of orders passed in mutation proceedings. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain the writ petition against such orders as mutation proceedings are the summary proceedings and it is open for the parties to get their rights adjudicated by filing a regular proceeding either in Revenue Courts or in Civil Court for declaration of their rights. He has pointed out Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit to say that Ram Ratan and Ram Milan, the predecessor in interest had filed a Regular Suit No.38 of 2010 (Ram Kishore and Another Vs. Smt. Adhari and others) which was subjudice before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, and therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained.
1