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


Prahlad v. State Of U.P. And Othres - WRIT - A No. 72859 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6665 (30 November 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).


Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.2.2005 and 25.7.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge(Sr. Division) Pilibhit. By the first order the petitioner was precluded from filing written statement and by the second order the application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 5.2.2005 has been rejected.

I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Rai learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7 and have also examined the order dated 25.7.2005. The said order has been passed taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings by not filing the written statement despite two opportunities of three months each. Normally such conduct on behalf of the tenant defendant would be sufficient not to grant any indulgence and taking away the right of filing the written statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the non filing of the written statement and has submitted that one last opportunity be given subject to what ever terms that may be imposed by this Court.

In view of the said request the petitioner is permitted to file the written statement within a period of two weeks from today and in any case before 19.12.2005 on which date both the parties shall appear before the Prescribed Authority subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be paid  along with filing of the written statement to the respondent 3 to 7  or their counsel. This order has been passed in order to enable the trial court to decide the matter on merits expeditiously and ensure that the tenant petitioner would not seek any undue and unduly long adjournment in the proceedings.

Petition is accordingly allowed.




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.