Allowed

Rampati v. Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A227/106/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the high court held that the appellate court overlooked an affidavit supporting an application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.3.2018 was set aside, and the review order was quashed, allowing the restoration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.3.2018 is set aside; restoration application allowed; appellate court directed to hear appeal on merits; review order dismissed.

Rampati Vs Additional District Judge and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 106 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rampati Respondent :- Additional District Judge And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Krishna,Abhishek Krishna

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent.

¶6

The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 24.8.2016, 16.3.2018 and 29.11.2019.

¶7

This Court, vide its order dated 9.1.2020, had directed that steps be taken within one week to serve the respondents.

¶8

As per office report dated 20.1.2020, steps were taken, however, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents.

¶9

The short submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal in question was dismissed in default on 24.8.2016 and application under Order 41 Rule 19 was filed on 13.12.2016, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that the cause shown for non-appearance was not justified and no affidavit in support of the delay condonation application had been filed.

¶10

The counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that an affidavit in support of

¶11

the delay condonation application was filed which was overlooked by the appellate court, thus, the applicants preferred a review petition on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the record. The said review was also rejected vide an order dated 29.11.2019.

¶12

Considering the submissions made as well as on perusal of record it is clear that an affidavit in support of the section 5 application was filed which was numbered as Paper No. 7-C/1 and thus the order passed by the appellate court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶13

The order dated 16.3.2018 is set aside. The restoration application filed by the applicant herein is allowed with directions upon the appellate court to hear and decide the Appeal No. 105 of 2015 without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with law on merits.

¶14

In view of the order passed above, the order dated 29.11.2019 does not stand.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed off.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Puspendra

Rampati v. Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampati v. Additional District Judge and 2 Others

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

Babu Ram Vs Roshan Lal and Others

Jagdish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Finance U.P. Lucknow and Others

Devesh Rathi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs Sangeet and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Taraiya Vs Civil Judge and 5 Others

Nagar Palika Parishad Khair Aligarh Vs Khair Inter College Khair Aligarh and Another