Allowed

Mohd. Aslam Khan & Ors. v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/4296/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed condonation of 16 days delay in filing a restoration application. Granted restoration of the underlying writ petition dismissed for default due to counsel's failure to notice dates. Ordered pleadings completion and listed for arguments.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing restoration application condoned; writ petition restored to original number and position.

Mohd. Aslam Khan & Ors. Vs East Delhi Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~29

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4296/2014 MOHD. ASLAM KHAN & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. A. Shrestha, Mr. Firoz Khan & Mr. Raj Gunjan, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa with Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for EDMC. Mr. Rakesh Singh & Mr. Kaliramna, Advs. for R2, 3 & 4.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 22.02.2019

¶8

CM APPL. No. 8559/2019 (for condonation of delay in filing restoration application)

¶9

By this application the petitioners seek condonation of 16 days delay in filing the application seeking restoration of the writ petition. All respondents in the matter appear on advance copy. There is no objection to this application being allowed.

¶10

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing of the restoration application is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶11

CM APPL. No. 8558/2019 (for principles of Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration)

¶12

By this application, the petitioners seek restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed vidé order dated 04.12.2018 for default of prosecution

¶13

since no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on 18.09.2018 and 04.12.2018.

¶14

It is stated in the application that non-appearance was for the reason that the petitioners’ previous counsel was not aware of the dates in the matter and had omitted to notice the matter in the cause-list. It is further stated that the previous counsel also refused to appear for the petitioners and the petitioners were unable to get the file back from the previous counsel; whereupon the petitioners applied for a certified copy of entire paperbook.

¶15

In view of the above, the petitioners say they have engaged new counsel, who has filed the present petition.

¶16

Counsel for the respondents have no objection to the petition being restored.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application and considering the relief claimed, the application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number and position.

¶18

Pleadings in the matter are stated to be complete.

¶19

List for arguments on 26^th April 2019.

¶20

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

¶21

FEBRUARY 22, 2019/ uj

Mohd. Aslam Khan & Ors. v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Aslam Khan & Ors. v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

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

D.T.C. Vs Madan Lal & Anr.

M/S Kay International Vs Raghubir Singh

Huma Saad Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Jha, Vs D.R.I

Shri Krishan Kumar Agarwal Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bpl-Kpl (Jv) Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Anr.

Rahul Kumar Vs South Delhi M.C.D. through D.C.M.C.D. Green Park & Ors.

Vikash Sharma Vs South Delhi M.C.D. Thorugh D.C.M.C.D. Green Park and Ors.

Sachin Tanwar Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Shankey Choudhary Baliyan Vs the Director Office of Ctet/Jnvst/Me Central Board of Secondary Education (Ctet)

Riya Intetrnational College Vs Rehabilitaion Council of India

Sahvir Mahto Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

Amita Pandey & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Aarushi Dhingra Vs Union of India and Ors.