This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a recall application regarding an absentia judgment in a civil appeal and the subsequent rejection of the recall of the memo. The High Court held there was no jurisdictional error.
The recall application was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.
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. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 653 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Nirmala Devi Respondent :- Purushottam Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present petition has been filed to set aside the orders dated 21.4.2014 and 27.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge (Anti-corruption), District Gorakhpur.
The petitioner instituted Original Suit No.86 of 2012 for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendantrespondent. In the aforesaid original suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C) for a temporary injunction which was dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 6.4.2012.
Challenging the order dated 6.4.2012, the petitioner filed Misc.Appeal No.43 of 2014 which was dismissed in default due to absence of the petitioner by order dated 21.4.2014. The petitioner filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 21.4.2014 and to restore Misc.Appeal to its original number and file which has been rejected by the Additional District Judge, i.e., appellate court vide its order dated 27.10.2021. Hence, the present writ petition.
A reading of the order dated 21.4.2014 shows that the petitioner was continuously absenting herself when the case was called out for hearing. While rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dated 21.4.2014, the Additional District Judge has taken note of the failure of the petitioner to explain the failure of the Pairokar of the petitioner who is also the husband of the petitioner, in doing the pairvi of the case. The recall application was filed on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner was ill when the case was called out for hearing and therefore, the petitioner could not be present on the date fixed in Misc. Appeal. The appellate Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner did not produce any document to substantiate the grounds raised in the recall application for recall of the order dated 21.4.2014.
There is no jurisdictional error or any other illegality in the
orders dated 21.4.2014 and 27.10.2021 passed by the appellate court so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2022 IB
Digitally signed by ITU BANERJEE Date: 2022.02.17 16:02:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any jurisdictional error or illegality in the appellate orders dated 21.4.2014 and 27.10.2021 warranting intervention under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Nirmala Devi
Purushottam
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
