Allowed

Balamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Dec 2010WP/32517/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution should not be summarily rejected. The Court allowed the restoration and set aside the dismissal order, directing the second respondent to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration allowed; order dismissing the appeal set aside; direction to Second Respondent to dispose of appeal expeditiously after hearing both sides.

Balamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 32517 OF 2010.

¶3

DATED 24^th December, 2010

BETWEEN

Balamma and ors

…Petitioners

And

The Government of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad an ors

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 32517 OF 2010.

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the fourth respondents and the matter is pending before the second respondent. When the same was come up for hearing on 4.9.2010, none appeared for the petitioner and hence the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution. On the same day, the petitioners have filed an application accompanied by the affidavit for restoration of the case. However, the second respondent vide endorsement on the affidavit, rejected the application for restoration.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that inasmuch as none appeared for the petitioners, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and on the same, they filed an application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed vide subject endorsement. He submits that having regard to the

¶15

rights of the parties, the second respondent ought to have allowed the application.

¶16

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, to have the matter to be disposed of on merits, I am of the considered opinion that the second respondent ought not to have dismissed the application for restoration. Having considered the merits of the matter, the application filed by the petitioners for restoration is allowed and the order dismissing the appeal is set aside. The second respondent shall now dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶19

Dated 24^th December, 2010. Msnro

Balamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

B.Lohitha, S/o.Late B.Laxmaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

K. Vara Prasad Vs The District Collector

G. Narasaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddeboina Saidulu, Vs The District Collector

C. Mahender Reddy Vs The District Collector

Akkineni Anjaneyulu, Vs The Primary Coop.Marketing Society