Sri Niwas And Another vs Commissioner Chitrakootdham ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9110 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9555 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Sri Niwas And Another
 
Respondent :- Commissioner Chitrakootdham Mandal And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghav Ram
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

While allowing the restoration application filed by the private respondents, the learned court of first instance in the impugned order dated 28.10.2020 in the impugned order dated recorded that Ram Saran (father of the deceased respondents No. 4 to 7) had affixed his thumb impression on the summons served upon him. However the same Ram Saran has put his signatures to the written statement filed on his behalf in the court below. The signatures of Ram Anuj and Ram Saran on the written statement were made by one person. The vakalatnama of the counsel who had identified the signatures of Ram Saran and Ram Anuj is not available in the record. The court also found that there are dissimilarities in the signatures of Ram Saran which are available in the record. Further on some documents before the court Ram Saran had affixed his signature while on the others he had put his thumb impression. On the foot of the aforesaid reasoning the trial court found that the signatures and the documents tendered by Ram Saran were suspicious and consequently the service upon Ram Saran was not sufficient. The order dated 12.01.2007/02.06.2007 was ex parte to said Ram Saran and was accordingly recalled by the impugned order dated 28.10.2020.

The learned appellate court in the impugned order dated 11.12.2020 agreed with the findings of the trial court and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance.

The findings of fact returned by both the courts below are based upon consideration of relevant material in the record.

The arguments on behalf of the petitioners that the signatures of Ram Saran were authentic is a disputed question of fact. This Court is loathe to go into such disputed questions of fact while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner could not bring any evidence to dispute the aforesaid findings before the authorities. No perversity in the findings or illegality in the order is established from the pleadings and the record, nor were they otherwise pointed out in the arguments. There is nothing in the record of the writ petition to warrant interference in the impugned orders.

The impugned orders passed by the courts below are not liable to be interfered with.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.7.2021

Nadeem Ahmad