English Typing Test

AFR RESERVED Case:-SECONDAPPEALNo.-518of2017 Appellant:-Dularey Respondent:-RamSewakAndOrs. CounselforAppellant:-LalitKishorePandey,SudhirPande Hon'bleRaviNathTilhari,J. (ReviewApplicationNo.28351of2018) 1.HeardSriSudhirPandealongwithSriLalitKishorePandey,learnedcounselsforthereview-applicant. 2.Thisreviewapplicationhasbeenfiledbythedefendant-appellantinthesecondappeal. 3.Regularsuitno.465of2002(Mahaveervs.GokaranandOrs.)filedbytheplaintiff-respondentno.1,wasdismissedbythelearnedAdditionalCivilJudge(JuniorDivision),courtno.3,Sitapur,videjudgmentanddecreedated07.04.2015.TheregularcivilappealNo.40of2015filedbytheplaintiff-respondentwasallowedandthesuitwasdecreedbythelearnedAdditionalDistrictJudge,courtno.10,Sitapurvidejudgmentanddecreedated11.10.2017. 4.Challengingtheappellatedecree,thedefendant-appellantfiledsecondappealNo.518of2017,whichwasdismissedbythisCourtattheadmissionstage,videjudgment&decreedated24.11.2017. 5.Inthesecondappeal,thequestionforconsiderationwas"whetherthelowerappellatecourthascommittedanyillegalityinallowingtheappealandnotconsideringtheprovisionsofSection331oftheU.P.Z.A.&L.R.Actwhiledecidingtheappeal,whichwasthesolecontentionraisedbeforethelearnedSingleJudge. 6.ThisCourt,heldthatnosuchobjectionregardingmaintainabilityonthebasisofSection331ofU.P.Z.A.&L.R.Actwastakenbythedefendant-appellantandplacedrelianceonthefullBenchdecisionofthisCourtinRamPadarathandOrs.vs.SecondAddl.DistrictJudge,SultanpurandOrs.[1989AWC290All.],whereinitwasheldthatthedefendant-appellantcannotbepermittedtoraisetheissueofmaintainabilityinthesecondappealbecausenosuchobjectionwasraisedbeforethecourtsbelow.Inviewthereof,thesecondappealwasdismissedasinvolvingnosubstantialquestionoflaw. 7.Videorderdated25.08.2021,thedefendant-appellant/reviewapplicant,onhisprayer,wasgrantedtimetofilesupplementaryaffidavittobringonrecordthewrittenstatement,whichwasfiledalongwithC.M.ApplicationNo.112182/2021 8.SriSudhirPande,learnedcounselforthereview-applicant,submitsthatthepleaofbarofjurisdictioninthecivilcourtwasraisedbeforethetrialcourt.Inthisrespect,hehasreferredtopara9ofthewrittenstatementandconsequentlysubmitsthatthejudgmentdated24.11.2017underreviewsuffersfromapparenterroroflaw. 9.Para9ofthewrittenstatementisinreplytopara9oftheplaint.Para9ofthewrittenstatementreadsasunder:- 11.Fromperusaloftheplaintandthewrittenstatement,itisevidentthatanyplearegardingbarofthesuitinthecivilcourtbeingbarredbySection331oftheU.P.Z.A&L.R.Actwasnotraised. 12.OnspecificqueryputtoSriSudhirPande,duringarguments,iftherewasanymaterialontherecordoftheSecondAppealbeforethelearnedSingleJudge,whichevidencedthatthepleaofbarofjurisdictioninthecivilcourtwasraisedinthetrialcourt,asprovidedbySection331oftheU.P.Z.A&L.R.Act,hefairlysubmitted
0:00