Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJA RAM & ANOTHER versus VIDYA PRASAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raja Ram & Another v. Vidya Prasad & Others - WRIT - C No. - 57527 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18263 (23 November 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition seeks the quashing of the orders dated 2.4.2007 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the restoration application filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as defendants. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 28.5.2007 by which the Revision filed for setting aside the aforesaid order has been rejected.

Original Suit No. 842 of 1999 had been filed. The petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC which was rejected on account of non-appearance of the petitioners by the order dated 1.4.2003. An application for recall of the said order was filed but the same was rejected by the Trial Court by the order dated 2.4.2007. Revision filed against the said order has also been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the application filed by the petitioners has been rejected on absolutely vague grounds inasmuch as what was required to be seen was whether there existed sufficient grounds for absence on 1.4.2003 but by giving reference to his presence on other dates in some other cases, the Court below committed an error.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below.

The Courts below have rejected the restoration application observing that the applicant was present in the city as he was contesting other cases but there is nothing on the record to indicate that on 1.4.2003 the applicant was present. The case set up by the applicant in the application was that he had gone to Punjab to look after his ailing son and, therefore, could not attend the Court on 1.4.2003. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the interest of justice would be served if the application for restoration is allowed after imposing costs upon the applicant.

In this view of the matter, the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the Trial Court and the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the Revisional Court are set aside. The application filed by the applicants for restoration is allowed upon payment of costs of Rs. 2000/- which shall be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of one month from today. The impleadment application shall now be decided on merits expeditiously.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Dt/- 23.11.2007

Sharma/57527


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.