Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEEPAK ANAND versus ARJUN KUAMR JAISHWAL & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Deepak Anand v. Arjun Kuamr Jaishwal & Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 840 of 1983 [2007] RD-AH 11017 (3 July 2007)

 

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. 3

First Appeal From Order No. 840 of 1983.

Deepak Anand. ...... ...... .... Appellant.

Versus

Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and others. ..... ...... .... Respondents.

      Present:

  (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shishir Kumar)

   Appearance:

    For the Appellant   : Smt. Anita Srivastava.

    For the Respondents   : Sri V.C. Dixit.

-----

Amitava Lala, J.-- It is a very old appeal of 1983 arising out of the judgement and order of Accident Claims Tribunal dated 12th August, 1983 passed in Claim Petition No. 100 of 1982, under which the Court decided the Issue No. 1 as follows:

"Issue no. 1

4. It is worthy of mention that on 6-5-1983 issues were framed by me and 8-7-1983 was fixed for final hearing. On 8-7-1983 an application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the claimant and the same was adjourned to 28-7-1983. Even on 28-7-1983 an application was moved by the claimant for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 12-8-1983 (today).

5. Today since morning the case is being called out. The claimant is absent. The respondents through their counsel are present. Once I have already granted two adjournments there does not appear to be any reason as to why we should succumb to the whims of the parties and grant adjournments even if they do not like to appear before the court.

6. Therefore, the issue is decided in the negative."

We do not find any justification to pass any affirmative order in view of the facts and circumstances that too belatedly. No fruitful purpose will be subserved in passing such order. Thus, taking into account totality of the case we dismiss the appeal.

No order is passed as to costs.  

(Justice Amitava Lala)

I agree.

 (Justice Shishir Kumar)

Dt./-03rd July, 2007.

SKT(FAFO-840-83)

   


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.