Allowed

Ram Ratan Yadav v. Smt. Syamabai

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2012MCC/873/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed condonation of delay for a restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC. The court recalled an order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution and restored First Appeal No. 107/2005 to the file for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of First Appeal No. 107/2005 to the file for hearing on merits; order dated 6-7-2005 recalled; appeal listed before appropriate Bench.

Ram Ratan Yadav Vs Smt. Syamabai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

C3^

Hon'bleSingle Bench

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶5

M.C.C. N0. S-^3 / 2011

¶6

PETITIONER RAMRATAN-YADAV

¶7

^y~ S/o Ram LalYadav,

¶8

Presently aged about 52 Years, R/oHouseNo37/127

¶9

Tikrapara, Raipur. (C.G.)

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

Smt. Shyamabai Wd/o Baratu Yadav,

¶12

Present aged about 57 years, R/o Ghabhrapara,

¶13

Sanjay Nagar Road, Near AnandCycle Stores, Tikrapara,Raipur(C.G.)

¶14

APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF FmST APPEAL

¶15

¶16

<br>

¶17

CORA»a: HOWBLB MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON'BfcE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, Jj. ,C.C. _BfO.__873 OF 2011

Ram Ratan Yadav

Sint. SIivamabai

y, •g2MfO<&i^Ht

Present: None for the pafties.

¶22

{Passed ®a11-07-2013)

¶23

Per Abhav iUanohar Sapre. J.

¶24

I.A. No.01/2011.

¶25

This is an application inade by tbe tor condonation of delay ia filing the restoration applicatlon ansuig out ofordcr dated 6-7-2005 passed. in First Appeal No. It is ban-ed by 2091 days.

¶26

We have peruscd fhe contents of fhe appUcatioa made by the pentioner seekiug condonation of delay ia filtag ftie inam I'estoration appUcation. Having gone fhrough fbe contents of fhe apptication wbich is duly supported by au affidavit of the petitioner, we are satisfied that good'and sutficient ground is pleaded ia fhe applicatiou wluch constitutes a sutBclent cause tbr condonation ofdelay in filing tfae appUcation for restoration.

¶27

' I. ~

¶28

In our opinion, condoiung the delay advaaces fhe cause of .justice. On fhc other haad, nof condoniag the delay would defeat fhe very purpose of daimiSg substantial justice.

¶29

lt is aot uecessary to issue aay uotice of this appUcatioa to fhe respondent because on the date of disinissal of the inaui appeal, she or tier lawyer was not picsent ia fhe Court.

¶30

Aceorduigly and ia the light of fhe Ibrgoiag discussion, appUcation tbr condonation of delay ia filing the restoration application inade by fhe petitioner is allowed.

¶31

Also considered the restoration appUcation ou nierits.

¶32

This is aa application luade tiy tfae petitioner wlio ws» thc appellant of First Appeal No. 107/2005 and bad filed the said appeal agaiast fhe judgiaent aad decree passed by the Tenth Additional District Judge, Raipiu- in CivU Suit No.33-A/2004. The said appeal came for hearm.g before tiue learaed Singte Judge on 6-7-2005. Since no one appeared for bofh fhe parties, tbc leamed Single Judge-First AppeBate Court disiqissed fhe said appeal for want of prosecution. It is against this order of disaiissal, fhe appellaat of fhe said appeal has flled fhis restoratlon appUcation for setting aside/recaUing of the order dated 6-7-2005 aad for claiuung restoration of the appeal for its hearmg ou meiits.

¶33

This appUcation is placed before fhis Court as per rules because in tfae nieautmie the leamed Siagle Judge who had disnussed fhe said appeal has deiaitted the office.

¶34

We have gone fbroughi fhe cause stated in the appUcation for rcstora.tion ol'First Appeal No. 107/2005. It is duly supported wifh an affidavit offhe petitiouer. Haviag gone thrQugh fhe cause, we are satisfied with ffae cause pleaded in fhe applicatioa which is just, bonafide aad genuine. It, fiierelbre, constitutes a suf&cient cause wifbin fhe laeanina of Order 41 Rtile 19 of the Code of Civfl Proceduie and othersvise also. It deserves to be aud accprdingly accepted as beiag a sufficient cause.

¶35

Indeed, restoring ttie appeal to its onginal file for bei&g heard on merits satisfy fhe prm-ciples of do.iag substaatial justice to the parties bccause dismissal of aay case ia dcfault always deprive a person feoin his iight of hearing on nierite. Indecd, tbis is what was held by the Supreiue Court ia one of its locus classic case reported ta AIR 1955 SC 425 (Sangram Singh Vs. Blection Tribunal, Kotah & another). We foUow this prmciple laid down by fhe Supreinp Court ia San.grain Singh's caae (suprc^ for recaBi&j

¶36

•'' 1 ,.iy''^.is^"lx'' [y.^'""^. ^ ys'^^r':.. 'siiSSaSb ^ •j a?

¶37

Accorduigty and in the Ught of tiie fbregoiug discussion, fhe application made by the petitioner (appeBaat of First Appeal No. 107/2005) succeeds and is bereby aBowed, Order dated 6-7-2005 passed in First Appeal No. 107] 2005 is hereby recalled.

¶38

As a result, First Appeal No. 107/2005 is restored to its file ibr its hearing ou merite in accordaacc with law. Office is directed to list. the appeal before appropriate Bench as per roster.

¶39

We niay hasten to add thgt it is not necessary to tssiie any notice to the respondents teecause on the date (6-7-2005) when fhe appeal was dismissed for waat of proseciition., fh.e respondent had uot appeared and therefore fhe respondent is i»tentifled to be given aay notice to oppose this restoration appUcatiion. However, the respondent would be entifled to a notice of date of hearmg of fhe appeal after restoration as and when it is listed tar hearing before appropriate AppeUate Court aad before aay tiaal orders are passed iu fh.e said appeal,

¶40

1S. A copy of this order be kept in fb.e of the case of F.A. No. 107/2005 tbr rccord.

¶41

Let fhe appeal be iiow Usted tor further orders before

¶42

appropriate Bench as per roster.

¶43

. —-ssssg-

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge

¶46

G. Minhajuddin Judge

Ram Ratan Yadav v. Smt. Syamabai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ratan Yadav v. Smt. Syamabai

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

Newar Singh Vs State of C.G.

Narayan Singh Uike Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Amit Bishamlal Vallabhani and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Satrughan Yadav Vs Sakun Yadav

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

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