Dismissed¶12

Union of India Thru. the Secy. Posts and Telegraph Deptt andANR v. the Additional District Judge Court NO.6 Hardoi and Anr.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2025A227/12317/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; Section 151 CPC; Order 9 Rule 13; FAFO No. 282 of 1993; Appeal No. 2 of 1994; Appeal No. 44 of 1998; Misc. Case No. 1 of 2001; Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2002; ex parte decree; restoration of appeal; delay condonation; inordinate delay; callous approach; withdrawal of decretal amount on indemnity bond; Zila Ganna Utpadak Sahkari Samiti 2025:AHC-LKO:3425; Union of India; Hardoi; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court did not accept counsel's reliance on the judgment in Zila Ganna Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Hardoi, stating that the said judgment cannot be seen, as the order has been passed only on the ground of inordinate delay. ¶11

Union of India Thru. the Secy. Posts and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether there was any good ground for the High Court to interfere with the order dated 09.09.2016 rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC as having been filed after a delay of three years. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the callous manner in which the petitioners approached the Courts on various occasions, and the indulgence already shown once by the High Court, no good ground for interference was made out and the petition was dismissed.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters under Article 227 (Union of India thru. Secretary, Posts and Telegraph Department v. Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Hardoi and another), decided by Pankaj Bhatia, J. on 22.4.2025 (Lucknow Bench): The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.09.2016 rejecting its application under Section 151 CPC as having been filed after three years. Background: a suit was decreed ex parte on 25.05.1992; Appeal No. 2 of 1994 was preferred and an application under Order 9 Rule 13 was dismissed; FAFO No. 282 of 1993 before the High Court led to orders for depositing the decretal amount; Appeal No. 2 of 1994, transmitted on change of pecuniary jurisdiction as Appeal No. 44 of 1998, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.01.1998; the recall application with delay condonation (Misc. Case No. 1 of 2001) was dismissed on 08.08.2002; Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2002 was allowed, the orders of 07.01.1998 and 08.08.2002 were quashed and the appeal restored, the deposited amount being directed to be withdrawn on furnishing indemnity bond; yet the re-hearing application was moved only on 30.08.2011, after a further gap of three years. Counsel's reliance on Zila Ganna Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Hardoi (2025:AHC-LKO:3425) was not accepted, as the order had been passed only on the ground of inordinate delay. Held: given the callous approach of the petitioners on various occasions and the indulgence already shown once by the High Court, no good ground for interference was made out; the petition was dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22830

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12317 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru. The Secy. Posts And Telegraph Deptt Andanr Respondent :- The Additional District Judge Court No.6 Hardoi And Anr.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Verma,Ankit Srivastava,Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Shanker Asthana

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 09.09.2016 whereby the application under Section 151 CPC was rejected as being filed after three years.

¶9

The facts in brief are that a suit was decided exparte on 25.05.1992, against which an appeal no. 2 of 1994 was preferred. It is also recorded that apart from preferring an appeal, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 was also preferred, which was dismissed, against which, FAFO No. 282 of 1993 was preferred before the High Court, in which, orders were passed for depositing the decretal amount. Subsequently, the Appeal No. 2 of 1994 was transmitted to the District Court in view of the change of pecuniary jurisdiction which was registered as Appeal No. 44 of 1998. The said appeal too was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.01.1998. An application was filed seeking recall of the order dated 07.01.1998 along with a delay condonation application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2001, which too was dismissed on 08.08.2002. Challenging the orders passed in Appeal No. 44 of 1998 and Misc. Case No. 1 of 2001, a writ petition was preferred being Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2002, which came to be

¶10

allowed. The High Court quashed the orders dated 07.01.1998 and 08.08.2002 and the appeal was restored thereafter. In terms of the order passed by the High Court, an application was moved for re-hearing, the said application was filed after a gap of three years on 30.08.2011. The Court also recorded that in terms of the order passed by the High Court, the amount deposited was directed to be withdrawn on furnishing indemnity bond.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Zila Ganna Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Hardoi Versus Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Post and Telegraph Deptt. and others, 2025: AHC-LKO:3425 , however, the said judgment cannot be seen as the order has been passed only on the ground of inordinate delay.

¶12

Considering the callous manner in which, the petitioners have approached the Courts on various occasion and indulgence was shown once by the High Court, no good ground for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Arun

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India Thru. the Secy. Posts and Telegraph Deptt andANR v. the Additional District Judge Court NO.6 Hardoi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru. the Secy. Posts and Telegraph Deptt andANR v. the Additional District Judge Court NO.6 Hardoi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Tiwari Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,U.P. Lko. and Another

Sri Prasenjit Rastogi Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,U.P. Lucknow and Another

Bharat Lal Mishra Vs Amit and 12 Others

Jiyendra Nath Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy (Finance),Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Pawan Trading Company Thru. Manager Shri Mahesh Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Krishi Vipdan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Lko. and 5 Others

Safia Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Utraula Dist. Balrampur and 2 Others