AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Undisputed facts are that suit for declaration filed by the predecessor in-interest of Respondent no.3 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.1972, on the basis of which his name came to be recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, it appears that Petitioner purchased the property from predecessor in interest of Respondent nos .4 to 6, which was recorded and against whom the suit u/s 229B was decreed. After about 36 years, the Petitioner moved an application for restoration in the said suit to recall the parvana amaldaramad on the basis of which the name of the predecessor in interest of Respondent no.3 was recorded. During the pendency of the application, amendment application was also moved. Both the courts below have rejected the restoration application as well as amendment application.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since only amendment application was heard, as such, the same ought to have been allowed and could not have been dismissed.
Argument is totally misconceived. When the application for restoration itself was not maintainable, in as much as the parvana amaldaramad was issued on the basis of the decree which was never put to challenge and any amendment being sought in the said restoration application was meaningless and both the applications have rightly been rejected by the courts below. The impugned orders do not call for any interference.
The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed in limine.