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


Udai Pal And Others v. Subedeen And Another - WRIT - C No. 12064 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 2744 (12 September 2005)


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).


                                                                                                        Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  12064  of 2004

Udai Pal and others Vs. Subedeen & another  

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The revision of the petitioners was dismissed in default by an order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the District Judge, Mathura. The petitioners thereafter filed restoration application, which was dismissed in default on 29.3.2003. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for recalling of the order dated 29.3.2003 which was dismissed on merit by an order dated 10.2.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the petitioners are knowingly delaying the proceedings, because of which the respondents have suffered loss of time, as well as money. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that revision of the petitioners has not been decided on merits as the restoration application of the petitioners has been dismissed, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being allowed but on payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents.

Accordingly, the order dated 10.2.2004 is set aside. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the respondents within one month from today. The revisional court shall hear and decide the first restoration application on merit, expeditiously and if the same is allowed, the revision itself shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of payment of costs to the respondents.




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.