Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU LAL versus RAM ASREY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu Lal v. Ram Asrey - SECOND APPEAL No. 2841 of 1984 [2006] RD-AH 13292 (10 August 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. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

Pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2006, the case is listed today.

By the order dated 7.7.2006, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants was granted three weeks' and no more further time for filing rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the defendants-appellants in reply to Civil Misc. Application No. 21287 of 2000 and its accompanying counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 (Ram Asrey), as mentioned in the order dated 20.3.2006.

Today, an Application has been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 as well as the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no.1 and the defendant-appellant no.3.

Registry is directed to give appropriate number to the said application.

It is, interalia, prayed in the said Application that one month's further time be granted for filing rejoinder affidavit, pursuant to the aforementioned orders.

The Application is supported by an affidavit of S.L. Sahu, stated to be a Registered Clerk to the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3, sworn on 10.8.2006.

It is, interalia, stated in the said affidavit that pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2006, a letter was written by the said S.L. Sahu to the client to come for filing rejoinder affidavit; and that it appears that the said letter could not reach the addressee.

I have heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3, and Shri Dhan Prakash, learned counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 (Ram Asrey), and perused the record.

Shri W.H. Khan submits that in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the aforementioned Application and its accompanying affidavit, one month's further time be granted for filing rejoinder affidavit, as mentioned in the aforementioned orders.

Shri Dhan Prakash, learned counsel for the proposed heirs and legal representatives of Ram Asrey (plaintiff-respondent no.1), namely, Munna Lal and Gore Lal, has strongly opposed the prayer for grant of further time for filing rejoinder affidavit. Shri Dhan Prakash submits that it is not only by the order dated 7.7.2006 that the time was granted the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3, but the time was also granted by the order dated 20.3.2006 for the said purpose. It is submitted by Shri Dhan Prakash that it is evident that the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3 are negligent in prosecuting the present case, and, therefore, in case further time is granted, the same should be made subject to payment of cost.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is true that by the order dated 20.3.2006 time was granted to the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3 for filing rejoinder affidavit, and the case was directed to be listed on 24.5.2006.

On 24.5.2006, the case was passed over on prayer made on behalf of Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3, and was directed to be listed on 7.7.2006.

On 7.7.2006, as mentioned above, the Court granted three weeks' and no more further time for filing rejoinder affidavit.

It is, thus, evident that sufficient time has already been granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3 for filing rejoinder affidavit, as mentioned in the aforementioned orders.

However, the same will be subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 500/-.

Accordingly, one month's and no more further time is granted to the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants nos. 2,4 and 5 and the respective proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-appellant no. 1 and the defendant-appellant no.3 for filing rejoinder affidavit subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. The cost will be paid on or before the next date fixed in the matter.

List this case on 14.9.2006.

The Application, filed today, stands disposed of accordingly.

Dt. 10.8.2006

Safi (S.A. 2841/1984)


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.