Dismissed

Daljeet Singh v. the Executive Engineer,Electri

Patna HC12 Oct 2012CWJC/16494/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court of Patna dismissed the application challenging the rejection of a restoration plea. The trial court had refused to restore a suit dismissed for non-appearance after evidence was closed due to the petitioner's negligent attitude and delay over ten years.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed; the order of the court below refusing restoration of the suit remains.

Daljeet Singh Vs the Executive Engineer,Electri — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16494 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== Daljeet Singh son of late Diwan Singh, resident of village- Main Road Mokama, P.S. Mokama, District-Patna

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus 1. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division Barh, Post Office and P.S. Barh, District-Patna 2. The Assistant Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Post Office P.S. Mokama District- Patna 3. The Junior Engineer, Electric Supply, Mokama Post office + P.S. Mokama, District-Patna

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.K. Ojha, Adv.

¶7

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶8

7 12-10-2012 Heard Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge III, Barh in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2006 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of his Title Suit No. 113 of 1995 questioning the electricity bill No. 10 of 1995, has been rejected.

¶9

Perusal of the order impugned order manifests that the suit in question having been filed as back as in 1995, for all the 10 years the petitioner did not bother to pursue the matter nor even

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.16494 of 2011 (2) dt.12-10-2012

¶11

2 / 2

¶12

filed a list of documents. Forced with the situation, the learned trial Court by order dated 10.01.2006 closed the plaintiff’s evidence. The plaintiff-petitioner arose from his slumber and filed an application on 22.3.2006 for recall of the order dated 10.01.2006. The matter for recall of the order of closure of evidence, on the request of the plaintiff-petitioner was posted for hearing on 25.5.2006 and again on 15.6.2006 but the plaintiffpetitioner again did not choose to appear and press the same and as a consequence the application and the suit itself was dismissed. Learned trial Court in the said circumstances has refused to restore the suit. This Court also considering the negligent attitude of the petitioner, does not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶13

This writ application is dismissed.

¶14

Bibhash/-

¶15

(Jyoti Saran, J)

Daljeet Singh v. the Executive Engineer,Electri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljeet Singh v. the Executive Engineer,Electri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Vijay Kumar Singh Vs Radhey Shyam Singh and Ors.

Birbal Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Bachan Singh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Azad Vs Soni Kumari

Arvind Singh and Ors. Vs Dani Singh and Ors.

Sri Manorama Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Abdul Haque Ansari Vs Ramjan Mian and Ors.