Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sri Dhar v. Munnu Agrawal - WRIT - C No. 71350 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 243 (4 January 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).


Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Original suit No. 210 of 1978 was decreed exparte on 19.9.1978. The petitioner applied for the recall of the order in the year 1994 and since then various dates were fixed and on each and every date, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment which were allowed. Eventually, the adjournment application was rejected on 10.1.2006 and the application for the recall of the exparte decree was also rejected. The petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed by the order dated 31.7.2006. Consequently, the writ petition.

Both the courts below have given a categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner was continuously seeking adjournment since the year 1994. The courts below has found that the petitioner was coming out with flimsy excuses and was adjourning the case for one reason or the other and consequently rejected the application for adjournment as well as the application for the recall of the exparte decree.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada and others, 2002(2) A.W.C. 1294 (S.C.)  on the proposition with previous conduct of the party cannot be considered while considering the application for recalling the ex parte order.

In my opinion, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, from a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner has abused the process of the Court, and therefore, is not entitled for any relief.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.


SFH( wp71350/06)


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


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 |

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