Allowed

Khemraj Sahu and Anr. v. the Board of Revenue,C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2012MCC/222/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for condonation of delay and restoration of Writ Petition No.6752/2008, which was dismissed due to default. The petitioners demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, and the court recalled the dismissal order to restore the petition for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; order dated 14-07-2008 recalled; Writ Petition No.6752/2008 restored to file for hearing on merits.

Khemraj Sahu and Anr. Vs the Board of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

%^^P^;|®^^'^%^z|K|i'j

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

M.C.C. No. /2009

¶4

APPLICANTS PETITIONBR

¶5

..-.€0 'r^.--"'" ^^"y '^""~

¶6

Khemraj Sahu, aged about 35 years,^{S/oChhabiramSahu.}

¶7

Puranik Sahu, aged about 30 years,^{S/oChhabiramSahu.}

¶8

Both resident of village Kodapar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court, Raipur, through its President, Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

The Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶13

The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)^{Dhamtari,Tahsiland} District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶14

Additional Tahsildar, Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶15

Victoria W/o Hemant Satnami, resident of village Kondapar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶16

APPLICATION FOR RESTORAriON OF WRIT PETITION FCI N0. 6752 OF 2008

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CKHATTSSQARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

M.C.C. HO. 222 OF 2009

¶19

APPLICANTS/ PETITIONERS

¶20

Kheuu'aj Saiiii aiid ajjc^ilier

¶21

Versiis

¶22

NON-APPUCANTS/ Tlie RESPONDBNTS otliers.

¶23

Tlie Board of Reveziue aiid

¶24

D.B; Koa'bie Shri AbSiay Maaohar Sapre & Hoa»bleShri G.jaiahaiuddiu, JJ.

¶25

APPLICATION FOR RBSTGRATION OF WRJT PETITION (0 N0. 6752 OP 2008

¶26

Presesat: None for the appMcaiits,

¶27

Shri Shashaak Thakur, P.L. for the State.

¶28

ORAL ORDBR

¶29

(Passed on 17th day ofJtily, 2012)

¶30

Per Abhay Majaohar Sapre, J.

¶31

HeardonI.A. No.Ol.

¶32

Tliis is an appllcatiou ma.de by tlie applicaiits for condonatioii of delay iii filiiig the restoratlon appllcatlon arisiiig out of the oixler dated 14-07-2008 passed in W.R(C) No.6752/2008. It is barred by 255 days.

¶33

Having gone through fhe corAtents ofthe applicatioiiwhich is duly supported by aix a&ldavit of flie appllcaiits, we are satisflecl that good aad sufHcient ground 1s shown 011 the application which constitates a sufficient cause for condonatioAi of delay in filio.g tlie appliuatlon for restoratioii.

¶34

4, In our opiulon, condoniiig tiie delay advaiices flie cause of justice. On the ofher liaiicl, not condoiimg tlie delay would defeat tiie very pzupose ofclamiiiig substarAtialjustice.

¶35

5, It is not iiecessaiy to issue any notice of tlils application to respondeiit No.5 becatise ou fhe date of disiiiissal of tiie iiiam petition on default, counsel for the I'esporAclent No,5 was not present -ui the Court.

¶36

Accordingly, iii tlie llght of fiie foregoiiig discussion, application for coadonatioAi of delay ia filin.g fhe restoratioii

¶37

application laade by fhe applicants 1s allowed.

¶38

¶39

Also heai'd on iiierits offhe restoration application.

¶40

Tliis is aa appllcatiOAi made by flie applicaiite who are tiie peUtioners of W.P.(C) No.6752/2008 aud had filed tiie said writ petitioa^{agauisttheordei-sdated28-11-2007,19-10-2006and31-} 03-2005 passed by Board of Revenue, Clrcuit Bench, Raipur, CoUector, Dhaoitari aad lasfly by Sub Divisional Officer^ DhaQitaiti respectively. The said Writ Petitlon came up for hearuig before fhe learned Smgie Judge on 14-07-2008 aiid flie followmg order was passed:

¶41

<"Shri Sameer Sahu, Adv. for tiie petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubcy, G.A. for the State. The matter is Usted on detault as poiated out vide offi.ee Note dated 28-01-2008. Lcanicd counscl for thc pctitioncr prays for and is granted two weeks' tioie to reinove the default If fhe default is uot removed wifhia the aforesaid period, tiie petition shall be dismissed without reference to the Bench.

¶42

Since th.e petitionei-s falled to remove fhe default witiim fhe stipulated period and hence ia fhe l^ht of the peremptory order dated 14-07-2008 fhe writ petitiou was disinis^ed for its noncouapliaiice. It is agamst tliis order of disiiiissal, the petltioners of fhe said writ petltion have filed tiiis restoratiori applicatioAi prayiag for settiag aside/recalling of the order dated 14-07-2008 aad claimmg restoratioii of tlie writ petitlou (C) No.6752/2008 for its hearmg on merits.

¶43

This application is placed before fhis Court as per rules because iu the iiaiearitlme fhe learned Suigle Judge who had deiaitted fhe office.

¶44

We liave gone through the cause stated in the applicatlon for restoration ofW.P.(C) No.6752/2008. It is duly supported witii aa affidavit of fhe petitioners. Havmg gone fhrough the cause, we are satisfled wlfh fhe eause pleaded in fhe application whlch is just, bona fide aiid genuine. It therefore, coustitutes a suf&cient cause. It deserves to be aad accordiagly accepted as beiug a sufficient cause.

¶45

As a laatter of fact, iestoriiig fhe writ petitiou to its origiaal file for beiiig heard on nierits satisfy the priDLclples of doirig substantial Justice to the parties because disnxissal of aay case in default always deprive a pex'son froni his legal riglxt of hearMig on merits. Indeed, this is what was held by fhe Supreuae Court in one of its locus classlc case reported iii AIR 19SS SC 42S (Sa3i@?ami Siiigh Vs< Eleetioia Tfibiaaal). We fonow lliis pi-ixiciple laid dowxi by the Supreine Court ia Saagram^SirigIi's case (supra) for recaliiug of fhe isiipugned order,

¶46

AccordiD.gly aiid ia tiie light of fhe foregonig discussion, fhe appllcation Biade by the applicants (petitioiiers of W.P.(C) No.6752/2008) succeeds aud is hereby aUowed. Order dated 1407-2008 passed inW.P.(C) No. 6752/2008 is hereby recaUed. 14. As a result, W.P.(C) No. 6752/2008 is restored to its ffle for its heariag on iiierits ia accordaace wifh law. OfEce is dii'ected to list the appeal before appropriate Beiich as per rules.

¶47

^r ;i

¶48

We laaiay hasteui to add that it is not necessaiy to issue aiiy notice to respondent No.5 because on the date (14-07-20085 when the writ petitioii was disiaissed 111 default, fhe respoudent No.5 liad not appeared aad fherefore, he is iiot entifled to be given any notlce to oppose fhis restoratioii applicatioii. However, the respoudeat No.5 would be entifled to a notice of date of hearuig of tlie writ petitlon after restoration as anld wheii it is listed for heariag before appropriate Court and befoi-e any fiual orders aie passed in tiie said writ petitlon.

¶49

A copy ofthis order be kept ia tlie file oftlie case ofW.P.(C) No. 6752/2008, forrecoid.

¶50

Let the W.P.(C) No. 6752/2008 be now Usted before appropriate Bench for ordei-s, as per roster.

¶51

Sd/-
J^bhay Manohar Sapre
Judge

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

G. Mmhajuddin
Judge

¶54

Kvr

Khemraj Sahu and Anr. v. the Board of Revenue,C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemraj Sahu and Anr. v. the Board of Revenue,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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.K.Kachchhap Vs C.S.E.B. and Ors.

Shri Birmani and Anr. Vs Gm,Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Sayyad Anwar Ali Vs Regional Transport Authority and Anr.

Baratu Singh and Another Vs Hardev Singh and Others

Smt Radha Devi Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Smt. Anuradha Sethia Vs Kunti Bai and Ors.