3/19/2023 0 Comments Uplr requirementThe logic mentioned in para 23 of the judgment of the Full Bench in Ashok Kumar's case is rather fallacious. It is, thus, abundantly clear that setting-aside an ex-parte order amounts to its reversal. Set aside - To reverse, vacate, cancel annul or revoke a judgment order etc.ĩ. Reverse - To overthrow, vacate, set aside, make void, annul, repeal or revoke The words "alter" "reverse", "set-aside" have been described as follows in Black's Law Dictionary (Centennial Edn 1991)Īlter - To make a change in, to modify, to vary in some degree. " The word "reverse" means setting-aside of the order or the decree by the Court which passed it and also by the Court of higher Forum either in appeal or revision. Similarly, "reversed" has been described as "to turn back, to act in a opposite direction, to undo, annul. Ramnath Aiyar's the Law Lexicon secondĮdition (reprint 2001) as to make a change in to modify to vary in same decree. Reverse - turn the other way round or up or inside out, invert, transpose, revoke' annul.ħ. The dictionary meanings of 'alter', 'reverse', 'revoke' per Oxford Dictionary are as follows:Īlter - Change in character, position and modify. The question now is whether setting aside or revoking an order amounts to its reversal or alternation. A plain reading of the proviso to Section 201 shows that an order passed under Section 200 ex-parte or by default can not be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour judgment has been given to appear and be heard in support of it. These subsequent decisions were, therefore, judgments per incuriam.Ħ. It needs to be mentioned that all these decisions did not consider some earlier decisions of this Court (referred to later in this judgment) wherein a contrary view was taken. A similar view was expressed by the Division Bench consisting of Sri Desh Raj Singh, Member and Sri. The decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar had simply endorsed the view of Sri. He also handed over copies of these rulings which are discussed in this judgment.ĥ. Shukla drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that there are conflicting rulings of this Court on the question referred to the Bench and hence there is a need to clarify the correct legal position for the guidance of the Revenue Courts and the members of the Bar. That is one important aspect of a difference. The conception of a law suit is not for a summary proceeding. In some, hearing the side in whose favour the judgment is absolutely necessary. No decree shall be set-aside on any such application as aforesaid unless notice thereof has been served on the opposite party. (24) There is no parallel provision under Section 201 Land Revenue Act to Order IX Rule 14 CPC relating to a lawsuit. "when an ex-parte order has been set aside, it cannot be said that the decree has been varied or reversed." It means as you were, run again, it is to erase the alphabets A-B. But when ex-parte order is merely set aside, there entail neither reversal nor alteration. The subsequent order be for two heirs of a deceased tenant. There will be reversal when line is redrawn B to A and alteration is when ex-parte order directs entry of names of three heirs of deceased tenant. And setting-aside an ex-parte order is neither reversing nor altering. And do not hear when not altering or reversing the ex-parte order. It clearly means hear when you alter or reverse. The relevant parts from the judgment are extracted below: This contention was negatived by the Full Bench. It was contended, inter alia, on behalf of Ashok Kumar that no notice was given to him before setting-aside the mutation order in his favour. The matter was thereafter referred to the Full Bench. Ashok Kumar's revision against this order was dismissed by the Addl. The restoration was allowed and mutation order in favour of Ashok Kumar was set-aside. Sheoranya on the ground that she is widow of the recorded tenant who never executed any Will and, therefore, the ex-parte order in favour of Ashok Kumar be set-aside. Subsequently, a restoration application was moved by Smt. Sheoranya, 1996 RD 504, Ashok Kumar hadĪpplied for mutation on the basis of Will which was allowed in the absence of any objection. "provided that no such order shall be reversed or altered without previously summoning the party in whose favour judgment has been given to appear and be heard in support of it."ģ. To answer this question one needs to have a look at the proviso to Section 201 of the UPLR Act which is reproduced below: "does the decision of the Full Bench of the Board inġ996 RD 504 (FB), interpret the law correctly or setting aside or revocation of an ex-parte order amounts to its reversal or alteration requiring prior notice to the other party as per proviso to Section 201 of the UPLR Act?"Ģ. The question referred for decision by this Full Bench is:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |