High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Data Ram & Others v. Shoram & Another - WRIT - C No. 10866 of 2003  RD-AH 3260 (21 September 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10866 of 2003
Data Ram & others Vs. Shoram & another
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Heard Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri S.D.Kautilya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The suit of the petitioner was dismissed in default on 15.5.1996. The restoration application was filed on the very next day i.e. 16.5.1996. The said application was also dismissed in default on 31.1.1997 and the restoration application was filed on the same day i.e. on 31.1.1997. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 12.12.1997. The revision filed by the plaintiff-petitioners has also been dismissed on 22.2.2003. This writ petition has thus been filed by the petitioners challenging the said orders dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in default and also the order rejecting the application for restoration and the order passed in revision.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the grounds for rejecting the applications for restoration do not appear to be justified. The order passed in revision also is liable to be quashed. Both the applications for restoration had been filed promptly. The cause for non-appearance of the petitioners before the trial court was sufficient and the trial court ought to have restored the suit to its original number.
Sri S.D.Kautilya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that the plaintiffs are only interested in delaying the decision of the suit and because of the conduct of the plaintiff-petitioners his clients had to pursue the matter before the revisional court as well as before this Court and in case if this writ petition is allowed, heavy costs may be imposed on the petitioners. The prayer appears to be justified.
Accordingly, the orders dated 15.5.1996, 12.12.1997 and 22.2.2003 all are quashed. The suit of the plaintiffs is restored to its original number. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the plaintiffs shall not seek any adjournment in the case before the trial court. Since the suit has been pending since more than 10 years, it is directed that the trial court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, however, on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant-respondents which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of this Court within one month. On the deposit of the said amount, the respondents may withdraw the same either directly or through their counsel Sri S.D.Kautilya.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.