Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

IN THE MATTER OF : BADRUL ISLAM versus KALYAN SINGH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


In The Matter Of : Badrul Islam v. Kalyan Singh & Others - ELECTION PETITION No. 14 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 420 (6 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 48

Election Petition No. 14 of 2004

Badrul Islam          Vs. Kalyan Singh

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

On 29th July, 2005, the present Election Petition was listed before the Court.

On the said date i.e. 29th July, 2005, Sri K.R.Singh , learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Shams Khwaja, learned counsel for the petitioner , were present. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 was also present.

On the said date i.e. 29th July, 2005,  Sri Shams Khwaja, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted six weeks' further time for filing replies to various applications, as mentioned in the said order dated 29th July, 2005.

The said order dated 29th July, 2005 , interalia, further directed the case to be listed on 7.10.2005.

Pursuant to the said order dated 29th July, 2005, the case was listed before the Court on 7.10.2005.

On the said date, i.e., 7.10.2005, Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 was present. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner  was not present even when the case was taken-up in the revised list.

In the circumstances, by the order dated 7.10.2005, the case was adjourned, and was directed to be listed on 25.11.2005.

Pursuant to the  said order dated 7.10.2005, the Election Petition was listed before the Court on 25.11.2005.

On the said date, i.e., 25.11.2005, Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 was present. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present.

In the circumstances, by the order dated 25.11.2005 ( in- correctly mentioned as 26.11.2005), the case was adjourned , and was directed to be listed on 19.12.2005.

Pursuant to the said order dated 25.11.2005 ( incorrectly mentioned as 26.11.2005) , the case was listed before the Court on 19.12.2005.

On the said date i.e. 19.12.2005, Sri K.R. Singh ,learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 was present. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was  again not present.

In the circumstances, the Court by the order dated 19.12.2005, adjourned the case, and directed the case to be listed peremptorily on 6.1.2006.

Pursuant to the  said order dated  19.12.2005, the case is listed today (i.e. on  6.1.2006) peremptorily .

The case has been called out in the revised list.

Sri K.R. Singh , learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is present. However,  the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.

In the circumstances, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the Election Petition for want of prosecution.

The Election Petition is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.

Dt. 6.1.2006/Election Petition No. 14 of 2004/aks.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.