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


Smt. Kamlesh Singh v. Commissioner, Meerut Division & Others - WRIT - C No. 50250 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15885 (12 September 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  50250 of 2006

Smt. Kamlesh Singh...............Petitioner


Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut

& Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 25.4.2006 passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for recall of order dated 24.1.2006.

The facts are that against an order passed by respondent no. 2 determining deficiency in stamp duty, the petitioner filed an appeal, which got dismissed for default. A restoration application was moved which was fixed for 24.1.2006 for hearing, on the said date the petitioner again could not appear and the same was also dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner again moved an application dated 1.4.2006 along with delay condonation application for recalling the order dated 24.1.2006 on the ground that on the date fixed she became ill as such could not come to Court and her lawyer who normally practise in Baghpat civil court, also could not appear on account of workload there. When her counsel came to Baghpat on 31.3.2006 and made enquiries then it was revealed that the appeal was dismissed in default on 24.1.2006. The appellate court dismissed the application vide order dated 25.4.2006.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 1 has dismissed the restoration application on the past conduct of the petitioner in prosecuting the appeal without adverting himself to the merits of the present restoration application.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the state has tried to justify the impugned order.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the restoration application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting the proceedings. The recall application filed by the petitioner has not been considered on merits. In my opinion, the reasons given in the application filed by the petitioner to recall the order-dated 24.1.2006 were sufficient and in the circumstances the order was liable to be recalled. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has committed illegality in rejecting the same.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.4.2006 is hereby quashed. The application dated 1.4.2006 filed by the petitioner stands allowed and accordingly order dated 24.1.2006 stands recalled. The commissioner is directed to decide the restoration application dated 1.10.2005 to recall the order dated 2.9.2005 on merits within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.



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.