Kamta Prasad And 3 Others vs Gayatri Devi And Another
2019 Latest Caselaw 5698 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4993 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- Gayatri Devi And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurabh Srivastava,Sharad Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vipin Kumar Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents.

By means of the instant petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.4.2017 passed by the trial court rejecting the application bearing Paper No.61 Ga-2, wherein prayer was made for getting survey map prepared in respect of the suit property. They have also challenged the order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision.

The trial court, while rejecting the application has observed that earlier also the petitioners filed application 28 Ga-2 for getting survey map prepared but which was rejected by order dated 15.10.2011 and therefore, the application with the same prayer could not be entertained. The revisional court has also taken the same view.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on previous occasion the application for getting survey map prepared was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not annexed any naksha nazari alongwith his plaint. It is pointed out that the petitioners thereafter sought amendment in the plaint and introduced the plaint map and thereafter filed the application in question. It is urged that in such circumstances, the application could not have been rejected on ground of rejection of the earlier application.

I have perused the order dated 15.10.2011, by which the earlier application was rejected. The trial court, while rejecting the application has held that the suit is for cancellation of sale deed and therefore survey map is not required. Observation has been made regarding non filing of plaint map, but the principal ground on which the earlier application was rejected, was that the suit being for cancellation of sale deed, survey of the suit property would not serve any purpose. Therefore, by merely introducing the plaint map, the petitioners cannot be permitted to move application with the same prayer.

This court finds no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below to warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

skv