Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GULAM ZILANI versus ABDUL RAHMAN AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gulam Zilani v. Abdul Rahman And Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 421 of 1984 [2006] RD-AH 16121 (15 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

15-09-2006 Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.

Order on

Civil Misc.(Restoration) Application No. 161233 of 2006.  

By the order dated 7-8-2006, the Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The aforementioned Restoration Application has been filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant, inter-alia, praying for recalling the said order dated 7th August, 2006 dismissing the Second Appeal in default and for restoring the Second Appeal to its original number.

The aforementioned Restoration Application is accompanied by an Affidavit, sworn on 8th August, 2006 by Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, who is stated to be the Registered Clerk to Sri V. C. Tripathi, Advocate and who also looks after the cases of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Affidavit that when the Second appeal was taken up in the revised list on 7th August, 2006, Sri Neeraj Tripathi was arguing the case in Court No.1 before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yatindra Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ran Vijay Singh in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68238 of 2005, and as such, Sri Neeraj Tripathi could not appear before the Court, when the Second Appeal was taken up in the revised list, and in the circumstances, the Second Appeal was dismissed in default.

Copy of the aforementioned Restoration Application has been served in the office of Sri R.R. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

Sri Siddharth holding brief for Sri R.R. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and Sri A.K. Banerji holding brief for Sri Shashinandan, who is also appearing as the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, are present, and they have no objection to the aforementioned Restoration Application being allowed.

Having heard Sri Bipul Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, Sri Siddharth holding brief for Sri R.R. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and also Sri A.K. Banerji holding brief for Sri Shashinandan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, and having considered the facts and circumstances mentioned in the aforementioned Restoration Application and its accompanying Affidavit, I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant on 7-8-2006, when the Second Appeal was taken up by the Court in the revised list.

In the circumstances, the said order dated 7-8-2006 is recalled.

The Second Appeal is restored to its original number.

The case will not be treated as tied up with me.

Second Appeal No. 421 of 84/AK


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.