Dismissed

Raj Kishore Vaish v. Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2024FAFOD/17/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a highly delayed appeal against an order of impleadment, the appellant argued that pending applications prevented disposition. The court held that pending applications are not grounds for condoning such long delay and dismissed both the condonation application and the main appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; First Appeal From Order Defective No. 17 of 2024 also dismissed.

Raj Kishore Vaish vs Mohd. Rizwan and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 17 of 2024 Appellant :- Raj Kishore Vaish Respondent :- Mohd. Rizwan And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- In Person

¶2

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶3

In deference to the order dated 15.03.2024, the appellant, who is present in person, has filed an application bearing IA No. 2 of 2024 (Compliance of the order dated 15.03.2024) stating therein that the appellant could not get the new address of the respondent no. 2 and this appeal is only concerned with the appellant.

¶4

The appellant, who is present in person, submits that since he could not get the address of the respondent no. 2, he does not want to press the appeal against the respondent no. 2 and it may be dismissed as such.

¶5

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed against the respondent no. 2 i.e. Rakesh Kumar Vaish.

¶6

C.M. Application No. IA/1 of 2024

¶7

Heard Shri Raj Kishore Vaish, the appellant, who is present in person.

¶8

This highly delayed appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.04.2016 by means of which the appellant was impleaded in Regular Suit No. 750 of 2015, Mohd. Rizwan vs. Rakesh Vaish, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sitapur.

¶9

The Office has reported a total delay of 2751 days and after adjusting 716 days, delay is of 2035 days.

¶10

The appellant present in person submits that the appellant had appeared in pursuance of the notice issued by the trial court and moved several applications including for deletion of his name but since those applications have not been disposed of, therefore, he is constrained to file this appeal against the order dated 28.04.2016 by means of which he was directed to be impleaded.

¶11

He further submits that during the proceeding, he came to know that certain fraud has been played with him, therefore, he has also moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which is also pending and has not been disposed of till date. Therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal and prays for condonation of delay.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the appellant, who is present in person, I have gone through the application for condonation of delay moved by the appellant.

¶13

The ground for delay is contained only in paragraph no.1, which is extracted

¶14

hereinbelow:-

¶15

"With due respect it is submitted that the present appeal, against the impugned & fake order Dated 28-4-2016 Annexure No. 1, for impleadment as defendent No. 2, is delayed by 2805 day approximately, due to misled by the practice & procedure as per law and also certain direction by the Hon'ble court. verbly, was adopted on the basis of the contents supplied to the undersigned after impleadment, a copy of Plaint and Application U/o IR 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., Annexure No. 4 & 5 respectively as per index, using the various remedies (Applications) to get the justice, available as per law, which is evident from the Official Record of the main suit No. 750/2015, Mohd. Rizwan Vs. Rakesh Kumar Vaish & others, along with seven Civil Misc. cases under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

It is pertinent here to disclose that none application could be disposed up to now, even after 7.5 years (seven years and six month), clear direction by the Hon'ble District Judge, Sitaper, as above."

¶17

Perusal of the aforesaid indicates that the appellant has not given even a single ground for condonation of delay of 2035 days as reported by the Office.

¶18

As submitted by the appellant present in person also, since certain applications moved by him have not been disposed of, therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court, which cannot be a ground for assailing an order with such a long delay and if any applications are pending and could not be disposed of, then the appellant can always avail the appropriate remedy for disposal of the said applications disclosing as to when the applications have been moved and showing as to who is responsible for delay and disposal of the applications.

¶19

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the delay has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, it cannot be condoned. Thus, the application for condonation of delay is misconceived and lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy for disposal of his pending applications, if any, in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the application is dismissed . Consequently, the First Appeal From Order Defective No. 17 of 2024 is also dismissed .

¶21

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Raj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kishore Vaish v. Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishore Vaish v. Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Arora Vs Izhar Ahmad

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.Throu.Regional Manager Lko. Vs Smt. Bhawna and Ors.

Ram Bihari Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bahraich Thru. Branch Manager and Others

National Highway Authority of India Thru Project Director Piu Lucknow vs Sitaram and Anr.

State of U.P. through the Engineer in Chief Lko and Ors. Vs M/S B.Patel and Company Vijay and Ors.

M/S Ekta Enterprises, Thru. Its Proprietor, Sh. Abhimanyu Chowdhary, and Another vs Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited, Thru. Its Managing Director