Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 609 (UTT)

ASUTOSH BACHHAR v. JARNAIL SINGH

2012-09-21

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] Service report shows that notices were issued to respondents through registered post on 23-8-2012. The envelope sent to respondent No.1 has neither received back undelivered nor any power has been filed on his behalf. More than 30 days have elapsed. Therefore, service is presumed sufficient upon the respondent No.1. 2. In respect of respondent No.2 undelivered envelope was received back with the report that addressee was not found at given address. Since the respondent No.2 has no interest in the land in suit, and he has been arrayed as proforma respondent and hence he need 3. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. 4. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of judgment and order dated 13-7- 2012 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Revision No. 71 of 2012, Jarnail Singh V s. Asuthosh Bachhar and others. 5. Perusal of record shows that respondent No.1 filed suit No. 114 of 2006 against the petitioner for permanent injunction. On 5-7-2012 the plaintiff/respondent No.1 moved adjournment application before the trial Court which was objected. The trial court rejected the adjournment application and the evidence of plaintiff was closed. Against the above order the plaintiff filed civil revision No. 71/2012 before the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The learned District Judge vide. order dated 13.7.2012, allowed the revision at the admission stage and directed the trial court to afford an opportunity to plaintiff to adduce his evidence. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed in the revision, this writ petition has been preferred by the defendant No. 1. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the civil revision was presented in the Court of learned District Judge on 13-7-2012 and on the same day the learned District Judge has allowed the revision and quashed the order of the trial court without issuing notices to the defendant/opposite party, which is against the principle of natural justice. 8. It is settled law that no revision can be allowed on the first day of presentation of the revision and that too without issuing notices and hearing to the opposite party. Therefore the impugned’ is against the principle of natural justice and against law and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. The writ petition is allowed. Therefore the impugned’ is against the principle of natural justice and against law and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the revisional court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge is directed to decide the revision afresh on merit after hearing both the parties.