This order allows a recall application to admit a late-filed reply in an appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 payable to the appellant's counsel.
Recall application allowed; reply taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 10,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Appeal No. 27/2022 Date: 23.11.2023
Canara Bank Vs. Neelama Pandey & Anr.
Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the appellant, Shri V. K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Kushal Kant, counsel for the respondent no. 1, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri J. S. Pandey, counsel for the respondent no. 2,
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has filed an application no. 687/2023 for recalling the order dated 21.04.2023, by which the right to file reply was closed, on the ground that the answering respondent could not come to the Allahabad to get the counter affidavit prepared within the time granted by this Tribunal due to compelling circumstances and illness. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 21.04.2023 may be recalled and permit the answering respondent to file counter affidavit.
Today, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 files reply to the memo of appeal, praying that the recall application may be allowed and counter affidavit may be taken on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has objected to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and further stated that if the reply is taken on record, a heavy cost may be imposed upon the respondent no. 1.
It appears that despite providing several opportunities, the respondent no. 1 has not filed reply, therefore, her right to file reply was closed vide order dated 21.04.2023 by this Appellate Tribunal. The ground taken in the application for recall of the said order does not appear to be genuine because no document in this regard has been given by the respondent no. 1. However, in the interest of justice and the
fact that the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has given his consent to accept the same subject to cost, the recall application is allowed and the reply filed by the respondent no. 1 today is accepted and taken on record subject to the cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the counsel for the appellant.
List this case on 28.02.2024 for hearing. Till then the interim order, if any, shall remain operative.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order closing the right to file a reply should be recalled to allow the respondent to file a counter affidavit.
Canara Bank
Neelama Pandey
Second Respondent
R. D. Khare
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
