Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JANTA UCHCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA THRU' PRABANDH SANCALAK versus GOVIND MANI AND ONE ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru' Prabandh Sancalak v. Govind Mani And One Another - WRIT - C No. 76101 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 14296 (24 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. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The suit for permanent injunction was decreed exparte. The petitioner on coming to know about the exparte decree filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13  of the C.P.C. which unfortunately was dismissed in default on 3.2.1996. A restoration application was filed which was rejected by the trial court by an order dated 20.3.1997. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by judgment dated 22.11.2005. Consequently, the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar application was filed by the District Inspector of Schools under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. which was also dismissed in default and the recall application filed on similar ground was allowed by the trial court which was affirmed by the revisional court. This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, I find that the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dismissing the application in default. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The orders dated 20.3.1997 and 22.11.2005 are quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner as well as of the District Inspector of Schools filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court.

Dated:24.8.2006

AKJ(WP 76101/05)


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.