Allowed

Amit and 4 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WRIB/2318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment撤销s an impugned order rejecting a restoration application due to delay. The Court held that disputes should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, condoned the delay subject to costs, and directed the Board of Revenue to decide the second appeal on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Restoration application allowed, delay condoned subject to Rs. 2,000 costs; impugned order set aside; second appeal decided on merits within three months.

Amit and 4 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108890

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2318 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Amit And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, by the learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶8

The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj in restoration application No. RES/1291 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. AL20041354001291) (Kallu Singh vs. State of UP ) in Original Suit No. 10 of 2011-2012 under Section 229 (B) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act whereby and whereunder the restoration application dated 28.03.2024 filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 25.03.2021 dismissing the case has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the restoration application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed the Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 10 of 2011-12. In the said Second Appeal the Court has granted interim order vide order dated 10.07.2012. The Second Appeal, however, was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.03.2021. The petitioner filed the restoration application on 22.04.2024 seeking recall of the order dated 25.03.2021 and restoration of the Second Appeal to its original number. The said restoration application was registered as restoration application RES/1291 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. AL20041354001291). The restoration application is stated to have been taken up for consideration vide order dated 22.04.2024, on which date, the Board of Revenue has proceeded to reject the same being of the view that sufficient cause had not been shown for condoning the delay.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that adequate reasons has been disclosed in the application for restoration, which has not been considered by the Board of Revenue. Attention of the Court has been invited to the averments made in the application, which reveals that after filing of the Second Appeal, the counsel for the Appellant/petitioners did not inform about the progress of the case. The appellant/petitioners approached the counsel, who could not satisfactory explain about the progress of the case and on making inspection in the office, it came to light that the revision had been dismissed on 25.03.2021 itself. The petitioners thereafter engaged another counsel and the application for restoration was filed. He submits that the reasons stated in the application was satisfactory and the application for restoration ought to have been allowed after condoning the delay.

¶11

It has also been argued that the Board of Revenue in almost identical circumstances had allowed the restoration application in another cases by imposing some costs. He submits that the impugned order rejecting the restoration application be set aside and direction be issued for deciding the Second Appeal on merits after hearing the parties.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶13

In the opinion of the Court, the dispute between the parties should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. By rejecting the restoration application, the issues involved in the Second Appeal remain unaddressed. It would be appropriate that the issues involved are decided on merits. The respondents can be compensated by awarding some costs in their favour.

¶14

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed.

¶15

The order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj rejecting the restoration application registered as restoration application No. RES/1291 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. AL20041354001291) (Kallu Singh vs. State of UP ) in Original Suit No. 10 of 2011-2012 under Section 229 (B) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is set aside. The delay in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned. The restoration application also stands allowed, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-, which is to be deposited by the petitioners in the office of Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad Bench within 15 days from today.

¶16

In case, petitioner does not deposit the costs before the Board of

¶17

Revenue within the time allowed, he will not get benefit of this order.

¶18

The Board of Revenue is directed to proceed to decide the Second Appeal on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Deepak/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit and 4 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit and 4 Others v. State of Up and 2 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