Allowed

Kartik and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2012MCC/12/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a restoration application for Writ Petition No. 1318/2002. The petition had been previously dismissed for want of prosecution before a Single Judge who later demitted office. The Court found the cause just and bona fide, quashed the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition to the file for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration allowed; Impugned order dated 09-12-2002 recalled; Writ Petition No. 1318/2002 restored to file for hearing on merits; Case disposed of.

Kartik and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUMCATURE AT BILASPURsC.G.

¶3

M.C.C.no. \rt-.. /28^

¶4

APPLICANTS (Petitioners)

¶5

¶6

Kart&aged about 50 yrs. s/o Late Sbri Manbodhi Kewat r/o village Puraina, Tahsil Rajim Dist.Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

Smt MaQbhautik aged alwut 53yrs. w/o Itwari r/o Chamsur, Tahsil Rumdi, Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶8

2.
''^-'
^••'•"/
^^>-
^ '^y 3.
^..**^Voy'/•^^^•'
^',,?^-
. <-' ^ ...^"
9'\fir. .••''"
%^/

¶9

Smt. Kenwrabai aged about 47yrs.w/o shri Umrao. r/o vfflage Pwama Tahsil Rajim Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

VE R SU S.

¶11

NON-APPLICANTS : (Respondents)

¶12

StateofChhattisgarhthroygh Secretary, dept. ofrevenue, D.K. Bhawan,secretariat, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Addi. Commissioaer (Revenue) commiss-ionerate, Raipw (C.G.)

¶14

Addl. CoISector, Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

Naib Tahsildar, Fmgeshwer, Tahsil Rajim, Dist Raipiaf(C.G.)

¶16

Jhorabai w/o. Gopal Gond, r/o. village Attarmara, rl ahsil G^riyaband, Dist. Raipur(C.G.)

¶17

^^^3^

¶18

Sonsirbai w/o Panchaii Gond, r/o. village Teka, Tahsil Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

Souiya wd/o not laiown, r/o village sher, Tahsil Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamuiid

¶20

Dashrath Lal s/o KLejau Gond, village Purena, Tahsil Rajim, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

Ganagbai d/o Kejau Gond,r/o vill. Ptyena, TabsiIRajim, Dist. Raipur(C.G.)

¶22

¶23

¶24

Godavari <3/o Kejau Gond, r/o Behmd Gaaj Maadi, Navapara (Rajim), Tahsil Abbanpur, Dist. kaipur (C.G.)

¶25

Triveni d/o Kejau Gond, r/o village PureBa, Tahsil Rajim Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

¶26

;Lumesh s/o Late Sohmi Gond, Minor, fhrough guardian D^hrath s/o Kejau Gond, aged 16 yrs.

¶27

Kumari d/o Late Sohan Gond, Minor, fhro^gb guardian Dashrath. s/o Kejau Gond, aged 13 yrs.

¶28

¶29

Miss Dhatieshwari d/'o Laie Sohan Goiid, Minor, fhfough guardian Dashrath s/o Kejau Gond, aged 11 yrs.

¶30

Respondents uo. 12 to 14 r/o Vfflage Piu-ena, Tahsil K.ajim, Dist. Raipw (C.G.)

¶31

ApDlication for restoration u/Ord.9 rule 4 C.P.C. of ttae W^no, 1318/2002 dismissed for ^efaiilt on 9.12.2002 bv hon' Shri Justice P.C.Naik.

¶32

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR

¶33

M.C.C. N0. 12 OF 2003

APPLICANTS/

Kartik and others.

(Petitionersl

Versus

NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶39

State of Chhattisgarh and others.

¶40

D.B: Hon'ble Shri Abhav Manohar Sanre SB Hon*ble Shri G. Minhaiuddin, JJ.

¶41

APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF W.P. N0. 1318/2002

¶42

Present: None for the petitioners.

¶43

Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶44

ORAL ORDBR

¶45

(Passed on 13th day ofJuly, 2012)

¶46

Per Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

¶47

We have perused the record.

¶48

This is an application made by the writ petitioners of W.P. No. 1318/2002 and had filed the said writ petition against the orders dated 29-12-1992, 20-06-2001 and 27-08-2001 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband, Additional Collector, Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur and Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Raipur in Rev. Case No.58/A/23 year 92-93, Rev. Case No.lOS/A/23 year 98-99 and Revenue Case No. 83/A/23 year 2000-2001 respectively. The said writ petition came for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 09-12-2002. Since no one appeared for the petitioners, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition for want of prosecution. It is against this order of dismissal, the petitioners of the said writ petition have filed this restoration application for setting aside/recalling of the order dated 09-12-2002 and for claiming restoration of the writ petition for its hearing on merits.

¶49

This application is placed before this Court as per rules because in the meantime the learned Single Judge who had demitted the office.

¶50

We havegone through the cause stated in the application for restoration of Writ Petition No. 1318/2 002. It is duly supported with an affidavit of the petitioners. Having gone through the cause,

¶51

^?^

¶52

we are satisfied with the cause pleaded in the application which is just, bona fide and genuine. It therefore, constitutes a sufficient cause within the meaning of Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and otherwise also. It deserves to be and accordingly accepted as being a sufficient cause.

¶53

^ v;

¶54

Indeed, restoring the writ petition to its original file for being heard on merits satisfy the principles of doing substantial justice to the parties because dismissal of any case in default always deprive a person from his legal right of hearing on merits. Indeed, this is what was held by the Supreme Court in one of its locus classic case reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 (Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal). We follow this principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh's case (supra) for recalling of the impugned order.

¶55

Accordingly and in the light of the foregoing discussion, the application made by the applicants (Writ petitioners of W.P. No. 1318/2002) succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 0912-2002 passed in W.P. No. 1318/2002 is hereby recalled.

¶56

As a result, W.P. No. 1318/2002 is restored to its file for hearing on merits in accordance with law. Office is directed to list the writ petition No. 1318/2002 for orders today itself in the supplementary cause list.

¶57

A copy of this order be kept in the file of the case of W.P. No. 1318/2002 for record.

¶58

Accordingly, the M.C.C. stands disposed of.

¶59

Sd/- AbhayManohar Sapre Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge -^

¶60

Kvr

Kartik and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.E.C.L. through G.M. and Ors. Vs Murari Lal Agrawal

Naini BAIand Ors. Vs Shivnandan and Ors.

Life Insurance Corp. of India Vs Sanat Kumar Pandey

Yogesh Soy Vs Secratory Madhyamik Shiksha MANDALandORS

Union of India and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Santosh Agrawal and Another Vs State of M.P.and Others