Allowed

Yaseen v. Union of India and 03 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018A227/8874/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 227 was filed to challenge the rejection of a restoration application in a civil appeal. The petitioner was absent due to illness supported by a medical certificate. The High Court held the rejection unsustainable, set aside the impugned order, restored the appeal, and directed the lower court to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.7.2018 was set aside. Restoration application 4Ga was allowed. The Civil Appeal was restored to its original number with a direction to decide it in accordance with law.

Yaseen Vs Union of India and 03 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8874 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Yaseen Respondent :- Union Of India And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyan Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gyan Prakash Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the order dated 21.7.2018 whereby the restoration application filed by the petitioner dated 26.4.2010 for recall of the order dated 21.4.2010 had been rejected raising doubt upon the medical certificate produced by the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.4.2010 i.e. the date fixed in the appeal, the petitioner could not appear before the appellate court as he was not well. He filed a medical certificate from the date 24.4.2010 till 24.4.2010 alongwith delay condonation application. The Court below without any plausible reason had rejected the restoration application with the finding that the appellant was trying to delay the appeal for one or other reason.

¶8

Having perused the medical certificate on record and the fact that the restoration application had been filed within a period of five days from the date of dismissal of the appeal, this Court finds that this is a case where the restoration application ought to have been allowed by the Court below.

¶9

It is not a case of inordinate delay or non-prosecution on the part of the appellant.

¶10

For the aforesaid, the reasoning given by the Court below for rejecting application 4Ga filed in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1999 cannot be sustained. The order impugned dated 21.7.2018 is hereby set aside. The restoration application 4Ga is being allowed noticing that the explanation offered by the petitioner/appellant is satisfactory.

¶11

The Court below is hereby directed to restore the civil appeal to its original number and decide the same in accordance with law.

¶12

It is made clear that the petitioner/appellant shall not take any unnecessary adjournment in the appeal and in case of any such adjournment, it would be open for the Court below to impose appropriate cost.

¶13

Subject to the above observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Brijesh

Yaseen v. Union of India and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaseen v. Union of India and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Vs Smt.Anuradha Devi

Nizamuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs Principal Judge Family Court Bareilly and Another

Munnu Rai Vs Rampat

Om Prakash Manchanda Vs D.M./ Collector Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Vs Arvind Kumar and 3 Others