Allowed

Satendra Kumar v. Naveen Kumar @ Sonu and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2019A227/4316/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought setting aside an order rejecting a recall application in O.S. No. 384 of 2016, a partition suit. The High Court reviewed the rejection and ordered the recall application to be allowed, directing the petitioner to file evidence and deposit costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.02.2019 is set aside; application 26ga is allowed subject to filing evidence by 05.07.2019 and depositing Rs. 3000/- costs.

Satendra Kumar Vs Naveen Kumar @ Sonu and Another — Partition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4316 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Respondent :- Naveen Kumar @ Sonu And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh,Yadu Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 21.02.2019 whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner being paper No.26ga filed for recall of the order dated 10.10.2018, was rejected. The order dated 10.10.2018 was passed in the circumstances that the plaintiffpetitioner failed to file affidavit and list of witnesses and, therefore, the date was fixed for defendants' evidence. It is admitted fact that 10.05.2018 was the date fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. Time was granted to the plaintiff-petitioner but he could not file his evidence. The reason shown by him is that on all the dates, the advocates were on strike.

¶6

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the O.S. No.384 of 2016 (Satendra Kumar vs. Naveen Kumar and another) filed by the plaintiff is a partition suit for partition of the properties amongst brothers. He states that the petitioner shall file affidavit and list of witnesses by 05.07.2019 and, therefore, the order dated 21.02.2019 may be set aside. He further states that the plaintiff-petitioner is also ready to pay some reasonable cost.

¶7

In view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitionerplaintiff as aforenoted and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.02.2019 in O.S. No.384 of 2016 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh, is set aside and the application 26ga is allowed subject to the condition that the plaintiff petitioner shall file his evidence and list of witnesses on or before 05.07.2019, and shall also deposit a cost of Rs.3000/- with the court below on or before 05.07.2019.

¶8

The petition is disposed of subject to directions and conditions as aforementioned.

¶9

Order Date :- 24.5.2019 NLY

Satendra Kumar v. Naveen Kumar @ Sonu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar v. Naveen Kumar @ Sonu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fulmati Vs Navnath and 7 Others

Pandhari Vs Shitla Prasad (Deceased) and 11 Others

Dinesh and Another Vs Rakam Singh and 3 Others

Ram Awadh Yadav @ Nihori Yadav Vs Ram Ashrey Yadav and Another

Mudit Kaushik Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Another

Ritesh Tripathi Vs Principal Judge Family and Another