Dismissed¶17

Swami Dayal and Others v. Deo Dutta and Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2024SAPL/45/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Second Appeal 45 of 1991; dismissal for want of prosecution; decades-old delayed appeal; condonation of delay notice issued 18.01.1991; service of notice insufficient on multiple respondents; parties appeared to have settled dispute; counsel unable to obtain instructions; interim order vacated; Rajnish Kumar, J.; order date 14.05.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:36975.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, as counsel for the appellants failed to obtain instructions and was not in a position to assist the court. ¶17

Swami Dayal and Others Vs Deo Dutta and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36975

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 45 of 1991

¶4

Appellant :- Swami Dayal And Others Respondent :- Deo Dutta And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Avadhesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- B.Sulaman

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

This court had passed the following order on 18.04.2024:-

¶7

"As per office report dated 30.03.2024, notices were issued in the year 1991 and 1996. As per office report, card notice has been deemed sufficient upon respondent nos.1 and 2 as they refused to sign the notice and stated they have made compromise.

¶8

Notice is also deemed sufficient upon respondent nos.7,8,13,21,14,24,4,5,6,10,9,22,23,25 and 27.

¶9

As per office report, service of notice is not sufficient upon respondent no.3 as no lady of such name resides at the given address.

¶10

Notice upon respondent nos.11,20,26,19 and 21 is not sufficient as they did not meet. Compliance report in regard to respondent no.12,15,16,17 and 18 not received as per report dated 15.03.1996.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid report, in regard to respondent nos. 1 and 2, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute.

¶12

This delayed appeal was filed and notice on application for condonation of delay was issued on 18.01.1991.

¶13

In view of above, learned counsel for the appellant is directed to seek instructions as to whether the cause of action still survives and also status of the parties. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list in the week commencing 06.05.2024."

¶14

Thereafter on the request of learned counsel for the appellant the following order was passed on 06.05.2024:-

¶15

"Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's further time to seek instructions in terms of order dated 18.04.2024. List on 14.05.2024."

¶16

Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has failed to get any instructions and none has contacted him, therefore he is not in a position to assist the court.

¶17

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶18

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶19

...................................... .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Banswar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Swami Dayal and Others v. Deo Dutta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Dayal and Others v. Deo Dutta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Shobha Devi Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi

Ms. Shobha Devi vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi

Firoj vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur and 2 Others

Ram Kripal Vs Ganesh Dutt and Others

Monu Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko.

Istiyak Vs Smt. Raj Laxmi and Others