Allowed

Smt. Javitre Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019WRIC/19983/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-speaking orders rejecting a recall application where medical evidence of illness was ignored. Court quashed the orders for lack of reasoned approach and remitted matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of SDM and Commissioner quashed; matter remitted to SDM to decide recall application expeditiously within two months.

Smt. Javitre Devi and Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19983 of 2009

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Javitre Devi And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Smt. Archana Singh,Ratan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Case No.60/4.1.94 of 1992 (Raghubeer Singh Vs. Ramesh Chandra and others) under Section 229-B was filed by the Raghubeer Singh (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5). The aforesaid case was dismissed for non prosecution on 18.01.2005. The original plaintiffRaghubeer Singh filed a recall application dated 11.02.2005 for recall of the order dated 18.01.2005 on the ground that on 18.01.2005 he fell ill and therefore, he could neither come to the Court nor could inform his counsel. The aforesaid application was supported by an affidavit. The aforesaid recall application was dismissed for non prosecution by the SDM, Etah on 31.07.2006. The petitioners herein filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 31.07.2006 on the ground that the original plaintiff was seriously ill between April, 2006 to 07.12.2007 and thereafter he died. In support of recall application, papers of treatment of original plaintiff were also filed before the SDM, Etah.

¶7

The recall application was rejected by the SDM, Etah by

¶8

the impugned order dated 03.11.2008 observing that filing of the medical treatment papers of Raghubeer Singh does not disclose a sound reason for delay in filing the recall application. No reasons were given by the SDM, Etah in his order dated 03.11.2008 that how the medical treatment papers of Raghubeer Singh do not disclose that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date fixed, i.e., 31.07.2006. Against this order the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 333 U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh by the impugned non speaking order dated 21.11.2008.

¶9

Since, the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 21.11.2008 as well as the order of the SDM dated 03.11.2008 do not disclose any reason for coming to the conclusion that the delay was not supported by reasons, therefore, both the orders dated 21.11.2008 and 03.11.2008 are hereby quashed.

¶10

Matter is remitted back to the SDM, Etah to decide the recall application of the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 5.4.2019 Nitin Verma

Smt. Javitre Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Javitre Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs Indra Nath

Shiv Bachan Yadav Vs Lakhraniya and 4 Others

Saroj and Another Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Attarra Banda and 8 Others

State of U.P.and Others Vs Dhatuwa

Mohammad Arif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indradev Vs State of U.P. Thru the Additional District and Sess. Judge