Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3631 (ALL)

Nisaru Nisha v. Abu Mohammad Jahiruddeen Khan

2016-11-04

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as Mr. Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The instant civil revision has been filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2006 in Civil Misc. Case No. 159 of 2004 (Abu Mohhammad Zahuruddin Khan vs. Smt. Tarikunisha and others) arising out of the order dated 24.10.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli in Case No. 97 of 1987. 3. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for partition in the year 1954 bearing Case No. 294 of 1954. The suit was decreed on 25.7.1957. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application for issuance of final decree which remained pending during the period 1954 to 1987. It was ultimately rejected vide order dated 01.08.1987 due to non-presence. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application on 26.8.1987 for recall of that order under Order IX Rule 9 CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No. 97 of 1987. The said application was rejected vide order dated 24.10.1998. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff again moved application dated 12.11.1998 for recall of the order dated 24.10.1998 which was ultimately rejected on 26.11.1999 on merit. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter filed a revision against the order dated 26.11.1999 bearing Revision No. 2 of 2000 before the learned District Judge which was dismissed on 31.7.2004. On the observations made in the order dated 31.7.2004, the respondent-plaintiff filed another revision, this time challenging the order dated 24.10.1997. The learned Court below by the impugned order has recalled the order dated 24.10.1998 and thereby permitted the parties to contest the matter on merit. 4. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that second revision was not maintainable and the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law. 5. Mr. Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the learned Court below has permitted the parties to contest the case on merit and no prejudice has been caused by the impugned order. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is to be noted that no interim order is operating in the matter. The matter is pending in this Court since 2006. I do not find any reason to keep the matter pending in this Court, unnecessarily. 8. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is to be noted that no interim order is operating in the matter. The matter is pending in this Court since 2006. I do not find any reason to keep the matter pending in this Court, unnecessarily. 8. By the impugned order, the learned Court below has condoned the delay in filing of the application and has allowed the respondent-plaintiff to pursue his application for issuance of final decree. In case the revisionists have any objection on the said application, they are permitted to file the same within two weeks from today and the learned Court below shall consider and decide the said application in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision is disposed of.