CHITRA SINGH Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL) AYODHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Upendra Singh learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri Virendra Shukla learned counsel for the private respondent No. 3.

(2.) In order to put the matter in a perspective it will be necessary to notice certain facts. The petitioner has filed the instant petition assailing the order dtd. 25/4/2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya whereby it rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the order impugned is merely interlocutory in nature and in any case, since the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to canvas its case before the Tehsildar. Hence, the revision was declined.

(3.) The petitioner has specifically stated that the order impugned is bad in eyes of law in as much as it is without due notice and against the settled legal principles of law. It is case of the petitioner that the proceedings were pending before the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Sirauli, Gauspur Barabanki and on 20/3/2024 the parties had appeared before the court concerned. On the said date, an application is said to have been moved by Shubham Singh who was the plaintiff before the Court seeking an interim protection. On the said date, on the said application it was noticed that the matter be put up with file fixing 27/3/2024. It is also the case of the petitioner that once the matter was listed on 27/3/2024 there was no occasion for the Presiding Officer to have passed the order dtd. 20/3/2024 itself and grant interim relief which is behind the back of the petitioner and per se in violation of principles of natural justice.