Dismissed

Shri Pushpendra Singh and Another v. Ganpati Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021FAFOD/39/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the statutory delay of 310 days in filing a First Appeal from Order Defective. Considering the respondents had not filed written submissions in the underlying suit and the matter had been heard at length, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal from Order Defective is dismissed as not pressed.

Shri Pushpendra Singh and Another Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 39 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Shri Pushpendra Singh And Another Respondent :- Ganpati Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Purushottam Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Agarwal,Tarun Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

The first appeal is reported to be beyond time by 310 days. The cause shown for delay in filing the FAFO is sufficient. The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶6

We have heard Shri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

Present first appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 7.12.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra granting ex parte interim injunction to the plaintiffs/respondents in Original Suit No.1651 of 2019 (Ganpati Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. Vs. Shri Murari Lal and others).

¶8

Regarding the maintainability of the present FAFO, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Zila Parishad Budaun Vs. Brahma Rishi Sharma, 1969 LawSuit (All) 131.

¶9

Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly states that in view of the aforesaid dictum, the FAFO is maintainable, but so far as relief, as has been pressed before this Court, is concerned, the same cannot be accorded at this belated stage in the backdrop that in the suit proceeding in spite of sufficient time, till now no written submission has been filed by the appellants/defendants.

¶10

Once, after the matter has been heard at some length and we have proceeded to indicate our mind in negative, then learned counsel for the appellants prays that the FAFO may be dismissed as not pressed, however request has been made for expediting the proceeding.

¶11

In view of this, the FAFO is dismissed as not pressed.

¶12

Suffice it to indicate that it is open to the appellants to press the relief before the appropriate Authority/Forum.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.2.2021 T. Sinha

Shri Pushpendra Singh and Another v. Ganpati Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Pushpendra Singh and Another v. Ganpati Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravan Ram Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Satnam Singh Randhawa Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Kame Vs Pallavi Chaudhary

M/S S.K. Associates and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Anju Sharma Vs Gaurav Sharma

Awadhesh Kumar and Another Vs Union of India and 7 Others