Shashi Agnihotri v. Allahabad Bank and 4 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Recall application allowed and delay condoned due to illness and pandemic, restoring a chamber appeal to its original number for future listing.
What did the court decide?
Delay condoned and recall application allowed, restoring the appeal to its original number.
What the court decided
I.A. No. 369/2022 in M.A. No. 30/2022 in M.A. No. 78/2020 In Appeal Dy. No. 212/2019
Date: 11.10.2022
Shashi Agnihotri Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors.
Present: Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the applicant,
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
A recall application has been filed by applicant contending that the matter was posted for hearing on 19.08.2019, but the learned counsel for the appellant Shri S. K. Yadav did not appear and the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further contended that Shri S. K. Yadav did not inform the appellant about the said order. The appellant, who is lady and a cancer patient, could not contact her counsel Shri Yadav, as she had misplaced the mobile number and she could not come to Allahabad due to pandemic situation of covid-19.
It is further contended that on 05.09.2022, she contacted the office of DRAT, Allahabad and got to know that the appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further contended that the delay in filing the recall application is not intentional and it is only on account of ailment and Covid-19 and reliance is placed on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Misc. application no. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motto writ petition (C) No. 03/ of 2020 for extension of limitation for the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022.
In view of the above, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay occurred in filing the recall application is condoned and the recall application is also allowed. Consequently, the appeal in chamber being M.A. No. 78/2020 is restored to its original number.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shashi Agnihotri
- respondent
Allahabad Bank & Ors.
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
18 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court