Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 105979 (ALL)

RAM RAJ v. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/36075/2024 · 2025-03-18

Manish Kumar Nigam

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39838 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36075 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Raj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmraj Chaudhary,Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "A) To issue suitable Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order Dated 23.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Revision No 955/2024, Computerized Case No. C202417000000955 (Satya Narayan and Others Versus Ram Raj and Others) as well as order Dated 24.06.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 753/2024 Computerized Case No. C202417000000753 under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 to the extent only as it grants liberty to Private Respondents to challenge the order Dated 16.08.2023 in competent court." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order to proceed ex-parte was passed against the defendant, which was sought to be recalled by moving an application by the defendant and the said application was rejected. The review petition filed against the order of rejection was also dismissed. The revision filed by the defendant against the order dismissing the application for recall has been allowed and thus, the application for recall was allowed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that proceedings under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending and it would be appropriate that defendant may also be permitted to the contest the proceedings on merit. 5. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. As the proceedings are pending since 2019 and the defendant has appeared, it would be appropriate that aforementioned case being Case No. 5836 of 2019 (Ram Raj Versus Staya Narayan and Others) shall be considered and decided by respondent No. 3 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after hearing all the concerned parties and giving a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence in respect of their case provided there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad