AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Kabul Singh Verma, Learned Counsel for the review applicant/respondent No. 4.
By the present review petition, the Respondent No. 4 has prayed for reviewing the order dated 21.09.2005.
Writ petition has been decided on two submissions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner; firstly that Respondent No. 2. has never filed any objection before the Consolidation court u/s 9-A(2) of the Act and further objections were barred by Section 11-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
In the review petition, the Respondent No. 4 has filed the objection dated 26.08.1996 in respect of Khata No. 117 a reference with regard to Khata No. 117 has been made in the order of the Consolidation Officer. In the objection dated 26th August, 1996, it was specifically pleaded for Punah Paimaish and further regarding the area, which has been reduced.
A counter affidavit to the review petition has been filed where the Petitioner apart from other objections has stated that the Respondent No. 4 had not filed any objection regarding the valuation of Gata No. 425 and 426 before the Assistant Consolidation officer as well as before the Consolidation Officer. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit are quoted below:
That the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the reviw application as stated are not correct, hence denied. It is submitted that the applicant/respondent No. 4 had not filed any objection regarding valuation of gata Nos. 425 and 426 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as before the Consolidation Officer.
That the contents of paragraph No. 8 of the review application are false and wrong, hence vehemently denied. The applicant/respondent No. 4 has not filed any objection regarding valuation on 26.08.1996. Copy of alleged objection filed by the applicant/respondent No. 4 is not correct and the same is concocted. It is further submitted that there is no mention in the objections that they have been filed in respect of the plot Nos. 425 and 426. The averments of paragraph under reply are misconceived.
The Respondent No. 4 has submitted that he has filed the objections before the Consolidation Courts, the same; has been filed along with the review application.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Sri Lok Pal Singh has referred the judgment of Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, that the review cannot be allowed so as to rehear the complete matter and similarly in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhary 1995 (1) SCC it has been held that the entire evidence cannot be reconsidered.
Both the judgments are not applicable in the present case, in as much as the writ petition has been allowed only on the technical ground that no objections were filed before the Consolidation courts when in point of fact the objection filed by the Respondent No. 4, has been filed along with the review petition, thus there being an error apparent on the record, the matter requires to be heard on merits.
The need of society is that there should be a justice oriented approach and the application for review can not be rejected only on the ground of technicalities. The Apex Court has held in M.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, as under:
Law Courts will lose their efficacy if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society -technicalities there might be many but the justice-oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweight the course of justice.
fn view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 21.09.2005 is recalled. The writ petition requires to be heard on merits.
Let the writ petition be listed before the appropriate Court for hearing. It shall not be treated as tied up or part heard before me.
The review application is allowed.
Put up on 6th March, 2006 before the appropriate Court for hearing of the writ petition.