Allowed

Life Insurance Corp. of India v. Sanat Kumar Pandey

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2012MCC/372/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed W.P. No. 158/2003 for want of prosecution. Applicant sought restoration based on an affidavit showing sufficient cause. High Court allowed the application, recalling the order of dismissal and restoring the writ petition for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The order of dismissal dated 16.08.2007 in W.P. No. 158/2003 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to the record for hearing on merits.

Life Insurance Corp. of India Vs Sanat… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

i'oyKi"£oo^;"Sl;-t.-L-ir&oooSo^oooE't'Wl.'ti'trijTj'iioo

¶2

-•f "

¶3

IN THE HON'BLE^ HIGH ©QURTOP CHHATTISGftRH

¶4

ATBILASPUR

¶5

M.C.C. 3 '^-5, /2007.

¶6

(Arisingfromtheorderdated 16.08.07 passedinW.P.No.158/2003)

¶7

.^.

¶8

PETITIONER: LifeInsuranceCorporation APPUCANT i--oflndia. DwsjoNw. omc&,w ^ 3FI'e^v^e^wn^rS- fi,..3-., „ ;n VERSUS..^-^^^g^

¶9

APPUCANT

¶10

RESPONDK^T.^ ^ SanatKumarPandey.^, ^^^ fK«li»rsivw.fs€(jktf^iy^j^ •'. ^^•T/^y^.nii.^Befa&^-og-c^ APPUCATION FOR RESTORATIQM OK WRIT"'

¶11

PETITION N0.158/2003.

¶12

¶13

HIQH CGURT OF CHHAmSQARK AT BSLASPUR

¶14

M.C.C.KO. 372 OF 2007

¶15

APPfciCAST

¶16

: Life Insurauc-e Corporation of India.

¶17

Versus

¶18

RESPOSDEIST/ NOW-APPLICANT

¶19

Saiiat Kuu-iai' Paildev

¶20

D.B: Hon'ble Stel Abhay Bianoliar Sapre & Hoa'ble Shri O. Miuhaiuddin, JJ.

¶21

APPLlCATIOFi FOR RESTORATION OF WRIT PBTI7IOK KO,

¶22

158/2003

¶23

Present: None for fhe parties.

¶24

ORAL ORDER i

¶25

(Passed oa 12th day of July, 2012}

¶26

Fer Abhay rnaaohar Sap^e, J.

¶27

Noue for flie pai-Ues.

¶28

Record penised.

¶29

r'.v

¶30

TIiis is au application xnade by tue petitiouer who was fhe writ petitioner of W.p. No. 158/2003 aud had filed thc said writ petitioii agaiast fhe order passed by the Secoud Additional DlsUict Judge, Bilaspm' m Civfl Suit No.6-A/2000. The said writ petitlon caine up for hearlng before the learned Siugle Judge on 16-082007. Siuce no one appeared for both the parties, the learued Siagle Judge disuiissed fhe said writ petitiou for waut^ of ' prosecution. It is against tlils order of dlsiiussal, (he writ p^EtiDnei; of fhe said writ petition has filed tlus restoration applicaBiou for settiug asi^e/recaUiag of the oruei uated 16-08-2007 aud for claiming restorauon of the writ petitioii for its hearing on inerits.

¶31

This applicatiou 1s placed oefore thls Court as per rales because In the lueantirne fhe learaed Siiigle Juuge who had deinltted fhe of&ce.

¶32

We have goue through tlie cause stated in the application for restoratioa ofWrit Petition No. 158/2003. It is duly supported witu aa affidavit of fue petitioner. Haviug goue through fhe cause, we are satisfied with fhe cause pleaded iii fhe applicatioa which is just, bona fide and geuuiue. It therefore, c-oustitutes a sufficleiit cause

¶33

4ii.-]u

¶34

¶35

witfaiu the meauiag of Olider 41 Rtde 19 of the Codc of Civil Procedure aad otfaeiwise also. It deservcs to be and accoiidingly accepted aa uciag a sufiicjent cause.

¶36

ll; i

¶37

Indeed, restoriug fhe writ petitiou to its original file for being tieard on inefjits satisfir the principles of dolng substaatial justice to fbe parttes because disnussal of any case iu de&ult always deprive a pcraoxi fmm. his legal right of hearing on jaaerits. ludeed, this is wliat was heM. by the Supremc Court in Qne ofits locus classic case repuricd iu AiR 135S SC 423 {Saagrin Siag^l Vs. Electioa Trlbuaaij. Wc iufluw uus piiiiciplc iaid dowu by thc Supieiuc Coiirt iri Sac^ram. Siagfa's case (supr^ for iccalUug offfae unpugued order.

¶38

Acc-ordingly and iii Ibe light of the fcregoiu^ dtecussloii, tfae applicatioii uiade by fhe petitiouer (writ petitioxters of W.P. No. 158/ 2003) succeeds and js hereby atlowcd. Ordw dated 16-082007 passed ia W.P. No. 158/2007 is hereby necalled.

¶39

As a result, W.P. No. 158/2003 is restored to its ffle for its heariag ou inerits lu accoAdance with ]aw. Office is directed to list fbe appealbefcre appnopriate Beacll as per iDster.

¶40

We tuay hasteu to sidd that it is not iiecessaiy to issue auy uotice to the fespoudeut because 011 fhe date (16-08-2007) wlien the writ petitioa was Aisaussed for waut of prosecution, fbe respoudent bad xiot appeaned and fhere&re, fhc respondeat is iiot -!.enUtlcdapplicatiou.to beHowever,glveu tfce/eiuyrespondentnotkie_ to wouMoppose, _ be fcfitittedfhis_ .- _ i-e^toratiojiSyS'notice...^l^A _ '-s of date of hearing of tfae writ petitjon. after restoration as an^ whefl it is Usted &rhearlug be&re appnopriate Cozirt aLUd-before an.v'Stnal uiders are passed ia the said writ petitiou.

¶41

A cbpy of fhis oider be kept ia the file of tlie case of W.P.. No. 158/2003 for recoi-d.

¶42

Kvt

¶43

Let thc Writ Petitioii No. 158/2003 No be uow listed for hearing. s~-—— "ss^——-——~ • -=3Sd/-

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

Sd/?l Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge

¶46

(G. BSlaB^judditt) JUDOE

Life Insurance Corp. of India v. Sanat Kumar Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Life Insurance Corp. of India v. Sanat Kumar Pandey

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

Satrughan Yadav Vs Sakun Yadav

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs H.P. Kindo

Ram Ratan Yadav Vs Smt. Syamabai

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

Naini BAIand Ors. Vs Shivnandan and Ors.

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