Allowed

Rampal v. Kanshi Ram and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2009FAO/3855/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an appeal where the appellant failed to pay restoration costs due to the Presiding Officer's leave and counsel's absence. The court set aside the lower order dismissing the appeal, granting a final opportunity to pay Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of 16.9.2006; restore the appeal upon payment of Rs. 10,000 costs.

Rampal Vs Kanshi Ram and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

FAO No. 3855 of 2007

¶3

Date of decision : July 27, 2009

Ram Pal

Appellant

Versus

Kanshi Ram and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶10

Present : Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

None for respondent No. 1

¶12

Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4

¶13

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The present appeal has been filed against order dated 16.9.2006 passed by Addl. District Judge, Bhiwani whereby he dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal.

¶15

The facts in short are that appellant had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1997. However, the said appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.12.2002 and appeal was restored vide order dated 4.9.2004 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. However, the case was restored and the matter was adjourned to 16.10.2004 for payment of costs.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the said payment could not be made as the Presiding Officer was on leave on 16.10.2004 and again on he was on leave w.e.f. 29.11.2004 to 22.12.2004. When the case finally came up for hearing on 5.2.2005, counsel for the appellant was out of station and he could not appear.

¶17

FAO No. 3855 of 2007

¶18

¶19

The reasons so mentioned for not depositing the costs imposed do not justify the lapse on the part of the appellant for not having deposited the cost. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents. The interest of justice would be served if one last opportunity is granted to pay the costs and the present appeal is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/as costs which shall include Rs. 500/- already due to be deposited as per direction of the Lower Court. The order dated 16.9.2006 is accordingly set aside subject to the payment of costs.

¶20

In case the said costs are deposited, the appeal against judgment and decree dated 12.11.1997 shall be restored and thereafter disposed of on merits.

¶21

The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶22

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶23

27.07.2009 reena

Rampal v. Kanshi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal v. Kanshi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar etc. Vs General Public etc.

Ishwar Singh Vs Rameshwar etc.

Dharam Pal Vs Baksho and Ors.

Hry. Power General Corp. Ltd. Vs Bhartiya Caccialanza Fire Systems Ltd.

Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

District Food and Supplies Vs M/S Aggarwal Rice and General Mills