Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.B. SINGH versus U.O.I. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


P.B. Singh v. U.O.I. & Others - WRIT - C No. 13583 of 1992 [2003] RD-AH 305 (2 September 2003)


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).




Pramod Bihari Singh ------ Petitioner


Union of India & ors. ------       Respondents


Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J

Hon'ble R.C. Pandey, J.

This writ petition has been filed in 1992 for seeking direction to the respondents not to give effect to the notice, dated 12.1.1989, issued under Section 256 of the Cantonment Act 1924.

This Court vide order dated 11.5.1992 stayed demolition of the property in dispute for a period of three months. The said order was extended till further orders of 11.8.1992. Sole petitioner, Shri Pramod Bihari Singh died on 24.12.1993 and an application for substitution of the legal representatives was filed on 29.7.1998 after more than 4, ½ years. Explanation for delay has been furnished that the deponent was an illiterate lady who could merely write her name in Hindi with great difficulty and she was not aware of the pendency of the writ proceeding in the High Court, and therefore, no application for substitution could be filed in time. It was only on 28.7.1998 upon receipt of a telegram from the counsel the deponent could know that there was a writ petition pending in the High Court. Petitioner immediately came and filed the application for substitution.

However, neither the copy of the telegram has been filed along with the application nor any affidavit of any employee of learned counsel, as to whether such a telegram was ever sent, has been filed. Nor produced the receipt thereof. The contents of the alleged telegram have been that the matter is listed for final hearing on 30th July, 1998. The order-sheet reveals that matter was listed on 11.5.1992 and thereafter on 17.8.1998. It had never been listed in between. Thus, the grounds taken in the petition seems to be afterthought.The grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay do not inspire confidence.

The said application for condonation of delay is rejected and petition stands dismissed as abated.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.




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.