Single-judge order allowing condonation of 88-day delay in restoring a writ petition. Court found no objection from opposite party and accepted the reason of oversight by counsel. Original writ petition restored to file.
Miscellaneous case and condonation application allowed; original writ petition restored to its original file.
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.
CMAPL No.371 of 2016
CMAPL No.371 of 2016 &
Misc. Case No.190 of 2016
03. 26.10.2016 This civil miscellaneous application has been filed for restor
ation of writ petition being O.J.C. No.9615 along with an application filed U/s.5 of the Limit
ation Act being Misc. Case No.190 of 2016 for condonation of delay in filing the restoration a
pplication.
The reasoning given in the application filed to condone the delay in filing re
storation application in time is that the petitioner filed memo for listing of the matter but
in spite of several memos when the case was not listed, on enquiry the petitioner came to know
about dismissal of the writ petition for default on 31.3.2016 and thereafter the application
for restoration has been filed. It is due to that delay of 88 days in filing application has o
ccurred, accordingly it has been prayed to condone the delay.
Learned counsel for opposite party has got no objection.Considering the reason mentioned in the condonation application, the Misc. Cas e is allowed. The application for restoration has been filed for restoring the original appl
ication being O.J.C. No.9615 of 1995 which, according to the petitioners, due to oversight of
learned counsel for the petitioner and as such there is bona fide mistake on the part of learn
ed counsel representing the petitioners.
Learned counsel for opposite party has got no objection.
Accordingly and considering the reason mentioned, the CMAPL is allowed. O.J.C.
No.9615 of 1995 is restored to its original file.
... S.N. Prasad, J.
mkp
1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 88 days in filing application for restoration of writ petition should be condoned.
Whether prima facie mistake made by counsel amounts to bona fide mistake justifying restoration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner in O.J.C. No.9615 of 1995
Opposite party in CMAPL No.371 and Misc. Case No.190
S.N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court