The High Court revised against an order dated 7.7.2012 where the Court dismissed the revision for failure of counsel to effect service on the private respondent as per office report.
Dismissal of the revision petition under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 247 of 2013
Revisionist :- Ram Autar Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Dixit,Km. Madhurima Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Case called out. None appears for the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. is present.
The revision petition has been filed against order dated 7.7.2012, passed by ACJM-I, Hardoi in Crl. Case No. 406 of 2011 Smt. Asha vs. Ram Autar Gautam.
Notice was issued on 16.7.2013. As per office report, till date, the revisionist's counsel has not taken any steps to effect service on private respondent.
In view of the above, the revision is dismissed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
Order Date :- 11.3.2022 kkb/
Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.03.14 18:19:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Autar Gautam
State of U.P.
Another
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
