Allahabad High Court
Sakrullah vs Commissioner Lucknow Division ... on 23 July, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 21
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4677 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sakrullah
Respondent :- Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Alok K.Mishra
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Vakalatnama of Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocate filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3,4 and 5 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no. 3, 4 and 5.
On 12.6.2013/17.6.2013 temporary injunction application filed by petitioner in Revision No. 387 of 2012-13 was rejected by Add. Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow. The said order has been challenged through writ petition. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent states that another application for stay has also been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon states that the second application for stay has already been withdrawn. Against an order finally rejecting temporary injunction application / stay application in a revision by the Commissioner/ Additional Commissioner revision may be filed before Board of Revenue as such order amounts to case decided.
The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that it would amount to second revision, which is not maintainable cannot be accepted. Only second revision by the same party against the same order is prohibited. The revision, which has been filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner is directed against the order passed by the S.D.O. In the said revision stay application has been rejected on 12.6.2013/17.6.2013 against which revision may be filed before Board of Revenue which will be first revision against the said order. Petitioner of this writ petition may file revision against the order dated 12.6.2013/17.6.2013 before Board of Revenue along with affidavit annexing therewith copies of all the documents, which are available on the file of Additional Commissioner and on which he wants to place reliance before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue in the revision if filed shall not summon the file from the court of Additional Commissioner. In no revision filed against any interim order, amounting to case decided, file of the court below shall be summoned.
Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the revision very expeditiously. Learned counsel for both the parties state that on the date, which is fixed in the revision no one will seek adjournment. All efforts may be made by the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision on the said date or on the next date.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.7.2013
S. Kumar
