High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sukhdev And Another v. Gulzari And Another - WRIT - C No. 24313 of 2006  RD-AH 8920 (3 May 2006)
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petitioners' application for restoration of appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Petitioners' miscellaneous appeal was filed challenging the order of the trial court dated 6.7.2002 after a lapse of one year five months 25 days from the said order. The appeal was preferred before the court on 30.01.2004. The restoration application was supported with an affidavit and the perusal of the impugned order shows that the affidavit did not contain the details of the reasons, which led to filing the appeal so belatedly beyond the statutory period of limitation. In the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was suffering from eye ailment for which he was operated upon and thus the delay was caused in filing the appeal. The details of operation, admission in the hospital and the continuous treatment as indoor patient in the hospital were not given in the affidavit. Therefore, the court below has found that the grounds so mentioned for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application had not been substantiated through proper evidence on record and as such the restoration application was dismissed. The impugned order, thus, does not appear to have any flaw, which may require any interference against it in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The petition having no force is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.