Allahabad High Court
Shashvat Sagar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179038
Court No. - 51
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24743 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shashvat Sagar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding of restoration case initiated on the basis of restoration application dated 22.10.2013 filed in case No. T202214700101119 under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that partition suit filed by Mr. Yogendra Bahadur Singh against the co-sharers was decided on the basis of compromise between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.1985. He further submitted that against the compromise decree dated 28.1.1985, respondent no.4, Nagendra Bahadur Singh filed restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC on 22.10.2013 along with the prayer for condonation of delay. He further submitted that against the restoration and delay condonation application filed by respondent no.4, petitioner's father filed objection on 30.7.2015 that restoration application is highly time barred and the suit has been decided on the basis of compromise, as such, application is not maintainable. He further submitted that during pendency of the restoration proceeding, petitioner's father has expired and petitioner was substituted in the restoration proceeding. He submitted that restoration application is not maintainable, as such, the proceeding for restoration be dropped. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (97) 200 Jag Narain (D) Through LRS Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation in support of his argument. He finally submitted that proceeding of restoration be dropped.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that restoration application filed by respondent no.4 is pending before respondent no.3, as such, necessary direction be issued for disposal of the pending restoration application in accordance with law. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter at this stage of the proceeding.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that partition suit filed between the parties has been decreed on the basis of compromise in the year 1985. There is also no dispute about the fact that restoration application along with prayer for condonation of delay filed in the year 2013 is pending for disposal. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has filed his objection in the restoration/ delay condonation matter before respondent no.3.
7. In view of the facts that petitioner has filed his objection in the delay condonation matter as well as the restoration matter, as such, the interest of justice requires that the Court concerns should consider the petitioner's objection in the restoration proceeding initiated by respondent no.4 in accordance with law expeditiously.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no.3, Upziladhikari Sadar, Varanasi to decide the restoration application dated 22.10.2013 as well as the delay condonation matter dated 22.10.2013 after considering the petitioner's objection dated 30.7.2015 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023
Vandana Y.
