Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANKEY SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bankey Singh v. State of U.P. and others - FIRST APPEAL No. 128 of 1995 [2006] RD-AH 11016 (6 July 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

Court No. 24

Civil Misc. Application  24 of 2006

IN

First Appeal No. 128  of 1995

Bankay Singh  ( deceased)  & others

Vs.

The State of U.P. through

Collector Ghaziabad and others

Hon'ble  Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.

(1) The first appeal  of applicants being defective  first Appeal No. 128 of 1995, (Bankay  Singh and eight others Vs. State of U.P.  and two others) was dismissed in deficit by Hon. Mr. Justice Onkareshwar Bhatt  on 22.4.2002.  The counsel for the applicants-appellants did not appear in the court on the said date.

(2) The applicants-appellants have now applied on 12.5.2006  for condonation of delay and for making good the deficit in court fee  and for restoration of the appeal.

(3) The counsel for the appellants-applicants has been heard.

(4) It will appear from the above that the applicants have now applied for restoration of appeal after more than 4 years. The contention of the applicants is that their counsel Sri Vijai Prakash did not look after the  case and did not inform  the applicants and they have no knowledge  of the dismissal of the appeal.  

(5) If the counsel of a client acts negligently , it does not provide a justifiable ground for the Court to  condone or undo negligence of the counsel.  The remedy of the applicants lies  in proceedings against the advocate in appropriate proceedings. It would be wholly improper on the part of the Court to condone the delay of more than 4 years, merely on the ground that the applicants were not informed of the dismissal of the appeal. The applicants should have been vigilant and should have tried to find out as to what was happening in their appeal.  They were sleeping over the matter for a long time  and the court must refuse to grant relief  to those who are not vigilant.

(6) It is an universally accepted principle of law that the delay defeats the equity. Latches, and so long as these, are uncondonable.

(7) Application dismissed.

6.7.2006.

nu


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.