Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VARANASI JAL SANSTHAN VARANASI AND ANOTHER versus THAKUR DAS SUREKA CHARITY FUND

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Varanasi Jal Sansthan Varanasi And Another v. Thakur Das Sureka Charity Fund - WRIT - C No. 29239 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10252 (24 May 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners' application for adjournment of the case and for giving time  (Annexure No. 2) to file the written statement was rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 19.5.2004 (Annexure No. 01). Thereafter a revision preferred against that order was also dismissed vide Annexure No. 3. The petitioners-defendants appeared in the suit on 7.8.2003 and for about nine months it did not file written statement whereafter in the month of May, 2004, the aforesaid application for adjournment of the case and time to file written statement was moved before the court. The said application (Annexure No. 2) being extremely laconic and without just and proper ground had been rejected by the court. The only ground mentioned in the application was that the written statement, which was prepared had by then been not signed by the competent authority and as such it could not be filed. Obviously, this application had been rejected and since the prescribed period, as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. had expired, the court had no other option but to pass the impugned order.  In the aforesaid circumstances, the revision was also found to be wholly without merit and has been rejected. I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

24.05.2006

gp/29239


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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