Allowed

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024A227/7537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 29.5.2023 and 12.3.2024 dismissing a land acquisition reference for want of prosecution, and restored the reference case to its original number.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the orders dated 29.5.2023 and 12.3.2024 and restored Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 02 of 2013 to its original number.

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others vs… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113999

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7537 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Mani Singh,Raghuvir Sharan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

Present petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and orders dated 29.5.2023 and 12.3.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-2, Kannauj in Civil Misc. Case No.51/74/2023 (Rajendra Nath & others vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.02 of 2023 and further restore the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 02 of 2013 to its original number.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier he has filed Land Acquisition Reference Case No.02 of 2023 before trial Court under Section 18 of Land Acquisiton Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.5.2023. Against that, he has filed restoration application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, which was also rejected vide order dated 12.3.2024. He next submitted that applicant is physically handicapped and at the same time his wife was also having fracture in her one hand, therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court. He undertakes that in case court may please to restore the aforesaid reference case, he would appear each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel opposed the submission and submitted that on so many dates applicant and his counsel were not present, therefore, restoration application may not be restored.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is undisputed that reference case was dismissed in default not on merits. Apex Court as well as this Court has repeatedly taken lenient view while deciding the matter arising out of dismissal for want of prosecution and opined that in the interest of justice, endeavour shall be made to decide the case on merits instated of dismissing the case for

¶11

want of prosecution.

¶12

In the interest of justice, Petition is allowed, orders dated 29.5.2023 and 12.3.2024 are hereby quashed and Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 02 of 2013 is restored to its original number. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case if possible within a period of three months in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

Petitioner is also directed to appear before the trial Court each and every date fixed and in case of absence of petitioner and his counsel, it is open for the learned trial Court to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Junaid

¶15

Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Pratap Misra and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Others

Surya Narayan Sharma and 44 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

Arjun Mishra and 2 Others vs Kuber Mishra and 3 Others

Smt. Laltesh Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Rani vs State of Up and 3 Others