The court allowed a restoration application for a miscellaneous appeal dismissed due to the previous counsel's name error in the court list, citing interest of justice.
Restoration of M.A. No. 478 of 2004 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3252 of 2018
In
Miscellaneous Appeal No.478 of 2004
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakmesh Marvind ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL
ORAL ORDER
5 24-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This M.J.C. application has been filed by the
appellants-petitioners for restoration of M.A. No. 478 of 2004 to its original file with the case that the aforesaid appeal was earlier dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 07.07.2010 which was restored on 11.05.2017 and after restoration, it was listed on 11.09.2017 and against it was
Patna High Court MJC No.3252 of 2018(5) dt.24-04-2019 2/2
dismissed on 18.09.2017. The appellants were waiting for the listing of the appeal, but as the name of the learned counsel of the appellants in the list appeared as ‘S. Pandey’ (previous counsel of the appellants) and due to inadvertence the case could not be marked. Hence, none appeared in the case on the said date, and accordingly, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 18.09.2017. However, on 28.08.2018, the appellants learnt about dismissal of the aforesaid appeal on the basis of rumour in the locality about winning of the case by the respondents. Then he got the matter inquired and learnt the actual state of affairs and filed this restoration petition. There is no deliberate and intentional latches on the part of the appellants-petitioners in dismissal of the aforesaid case.
The opposite parties did not file any rejoinder despite service of notice.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the M.A. No. 478 of 2004 is restored to its original file and the present M.J.C. application is allowed.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)
rohit/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 478 of 2004 should be restored to its original file due to inadvertence?
Binda Devi
Fulbadan Devi
Deepak Kumar
Sunil Kumar
Rubi Devi
Rinki Devi
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
