Allahabad High Court
Subodh Mohan Verma vs Deputy Director Consolidation ... on 10 December, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 745 of 2013
Petitioner :- Subodh Mohan Verma
Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Barabanki And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Revision No. 1081/789 Ganesh Prasad Vs. Subodh Mohan Verma and others and Revision No. 1082 Prabodh Mohan Vs. Subodh Mohan are pending before the D.D.C. Barabanki. Subodh Mohan who is respondent in both the revisions filed an application under section 40 of U.P.C.H. Act readwith Section 193,196,199,209,211,463 and 471 I.P.C. before the revisional Court on 20.02.2013 prayer that as Ganesh Revisionist in Revision No. 1081 had given wrong facts regarding his possession on oath as such proceedings under different provisions of law mentioned at the top of the applications must be initiated against him.
The D.D.C. Through order dated 01.10.2013 directed that he would consider the application alongwith the final decision of the revision. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the authority of Supreme Court reported in K. Karunakaran Vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another, 1978 (1) SCC 80:A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 290.
In the aforesaid authority, the High Court after holding that preliminary inquiry by it prima facie revealed that it was a fit case for making a complaint. Similarly in Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 236, the claimants in a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act had obtained the order from the reference court of enormous enhancement of compensation by filing forged sale deeds. After coming to know about the forgery the court directed for lodging a complaint under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
The allegations made in the complaint by the petitioner, copy of which is Annexure-24 to the writ petition have got direct bearing on the merit of the case, rather entire merit of the case and petitioner's stand on the disputed facts has been mentioned in the complaint. While deciding the revision finally, the court below will be required to express its opinion on the points raised in the said application and their rebuttal by the revisionist. Considering the application and deciding even prima facie the allegations made therein before the hearing of the revision finally would certainly amount to virtual decision of the revision. Accordingly, the order, which has been passed by the court below is the only possible order, which could be passed by it. If such an application is decided before final decision of the case it would amount to illegal exercise of jurisdiction or acting in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
Sometimes such applications are filed to delay the proceedings of the case.
Writ petition is dismissed with the direction to D.D.C. Barabanki to decide the revisions very expeditiously latest by 30.06.2014. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties particularly the petitioner.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this order to Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for sending the same to the D.D.C. Barabanki.
Order Date :- 10.12.2013
Deepak
