The Court dismissed a second appeal for want of prosecution, as the appellant's counsel repeatedly failed to appear on the undertaking given to argue the case.
Second appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59728
Court No. - 6
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 243 of 2017
Appellant :- Ram Chandra And 2 Others Respondent :- Rangnath Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari,Dharmendra Singh,Jag Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- H.R. Shukla,Manoj Sahu,Sonal Pandey
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Shri Jag Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants has sent an out of station slip with a request for adjournment.
Shri Manoj Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the request for adjournment on the ground that the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution by means of the order dated 25.04.2024. The said order was recalled by means of the order dated 05.08.2024 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the appellants that he will argue on the next date. The order dated 05.08.2024 is reproduced as under:-
"Heard Shri J.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Sonal Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 25.04.2024. The only objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the appeal may be heard on admission on merit because the case was being got adjourned by the learned counsel for the appellants otherwise she has no objection.
Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to argue on the next date in case the order dated 25.04.2024 is recalled.
In view of above, the application is allowed.
The order dated 25.04.2024 is recalled. The appeal is restored on its original number.
As prayed by learned counsel for the appellants, list in the week
commencing 19.08.2024."
By means of the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2024, the case was listed in week commencing 09.08.2024. When the case was listed, the same was got adjourned by learned counsel for the appellants by sending an illness slip. Today again the case is being sought to be adjourned on the ground that he is out of station.
In view of above, it is apparent that the undertaking given by learned counsel for the appellants is being flouted, whereas since undertaking was given, therefore, if learned counsel for the appellants had any difficulty, he should have either made alternative arrangement or informed to his client to make arrangement for arguments, therefore this case cannot be adjourned.
The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stand vacated.
Order Date :- 31.8.2024/Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Ram Chandra And 2 Others
Rangnath
Rajnish Kumar
Raj Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
