STATE OF U P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the above noted writ petition are these :-

(2.) THE main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the case on merits in terms of the alleged compromise between the parties. It has been stressed before me that there was no compromise as mentioned in the impugned judgment and that the appellate court could not decide the claims of the parties on merits in an appeal against the order dismissing restoration application in default.

(3.) SECOND submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party is to the effect that in view of the decision of this Court in State of U. P. v. Mrs. Rakesh Murthy, 1984 AWC 715 the contesting opposite party Shri Chaterji has no excess vacant land and the judgment of the appellate court is quite correct in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, it should not be interfered with.