Allowed

M/S Tirupati Build - Con Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 May 2023MCC/176/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing a petition. It also disposed of an admission matter by recalling an order of dismissal for non-prosecution caused by the omission of the petitioner's counsel's name from the cause list, restoring the Civil Revision.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.06.2021 dismissing Civil Revision No.119 of 2018 is recalled and the Writ Petition is directed to be restored to its original number.

M/S Tirupati Build - Con Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCC No. 176 of 2023

¶5

M/s Tirupati Build - Con Pvt. Ltd. A Private Limited Company Through Its Managing Director, Padam Kumar Singhania S/o Late Sharawan Kumar Singhania, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Wars No. 15, A Zone Railway Market, Vikrampur Road, Burhar, Opposite Railway Station, Burhar Bartara, District Shahdol , Madhya Pradesh, 484110

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Chief Engineer P W D, Bilaspur Zone, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Superintending Engineer P W D, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Executive Engineer P W D Pendra Division, Pendra Road, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner: Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Adv. For the State/Respondents: Shri Raghvendra Verma, G.A., appears on advance copy.

¶13

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

09.05.2023

¶16

Heard on I.A. No.01/2023, an application for condonation of delay in filing of this petition.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that he was not aware regarding the listing of the matter, when it was dismissed for nonprosecution on 29.06.2021. It is contended further that on 16.02.2023, he submitted a special request for the listing of the said matter and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the same, while directing for listing of the said matter on 03.03.2023. However, when the matter was not listed on the said date, he inquired about the same, then only he came

¶18

¶19

to know that the matter has already been dismissed on 29.06.2021 for non-prosecution. It is contended further that since his name was not depicted in the cause list, therefore, he was not aware regarding listing of the said matter and immediately upon knowing the said fact, the instant petition has been filed, therefore, the delay of 350 days occurred bonafidely, may be condoned.

¶20

On due consideration of the contents made therein, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I am inclined to allow the same.

¶21

The application is allowed and delay is accordingly condoned.

¶22

Also heard on admission.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said Revision Petition was listed on 29.06.2021 for hearing of the matter, however, the name of the concerned counsel for the petitioner was not shown in the cause list and therefore, he could not appeared on the said date when the matter was called. In order to substantiate his contention, the Vakalatnama filed in the said Revision Petition has been produced by way of covering memo on 10.04.2023. it is submitted further that despite filing of the said Vakalatnama, the name of concerned counsel, namely, Shri A.K. Prasad was not shown in the cause list. Further contention of the petitioner is that a special request for listing of the said Revision Petition was made on 16.02.2023 and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the same while directing for listing of the said matter on 03.03.2023. However, when the matter was not listed, he made an inquiry in this regard, where, he came to know that the said Revision Petition has already been dismissed on 29.06.2021 on non prosecution.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since his name was not shown in the cause list, therefore, he failed to make his appearance on the said date. It is, therefore, contended for the condonation of said default as occurred owing to the said bonafide mistake and, prays for restoration of the said Civil Revision to its original number while recalling the said order dated 29.06.2021.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondents submits that since the petitioner has failed to appear on the said date, therefore, the said Civil Revision has been dismissed for non-prosectuion and as the petitioner fails to show his sufficient cause for his non-appearance, the application, therefore, deserves to be rejected.

¶27

Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties, considering further that the Vakalatnama of the concerned counsel was already filed in the said Revision Petition, yet the name of him was not shown in the cause list for the said relevant date, i.e., 29.06.2021, I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has succeeded to show his sufficient cause for his non appearance on the said date.

¶28

The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the said order dated 29.06.2021 passed in Civil Revision No.119 of 2018 is hereby recalled and the said Civil Revision is directed to be restored to its original number.

¶29

No order as to costs.

¶30

vivek

M/S Tirupati Build - Con Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tirupati Build - Con Pvt. Ltd. a Private Limited Company v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatiram Vs Jethuram And Ors.

Haji Abdul Hashim Khan Vs Prashant Chandak

Parasram Vs Vijay Kumar

Smt. Kiran Devi Vs Parasram and Ors.

Rameshwar Prasad Sahu Vs Dr. C.R. Prasanna

Jageshwar Das @ Jageshwar Ram Vs Rameshwar Das and Ors.