Partly allowed

Sri Arjunaiah v. The Joint Collector

Telangana HC14 Jun 2011WP/16052/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside an ex parte dismissal order of an appeal for non-prosecution by the Joint Collector, restoring the matter and directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,000 as compensatory costs to avail one more opportunity to prosecute.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte order set aside; appeal restored; petitioner directed to deposit Rs.3,000 as compensatory costs with the Joint Collector by 30.06.2011.

Sri Arjunaiah Vs The Joint Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 16052 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Writ Petition is directed against an order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar on 01.10.2010, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein for non-prosecution. The Joint Collector has observed that the matter has undergone 11 adjournments so far and when the matter was called on 22.08.2009, 05.12.2009 and also on 01.10.2010, counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents are both absent and hence, he has noticed that there will not be any use in prolonging the matter and therefore, dismissed the case. Affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellant engaged to argue the matter before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar is also filed in support of the application seeking to set aside the ex parte order.

¶5

Though I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, for sheer failure of the appellant to prosecute diligently the case instituted by him, but however, I consider it appropriate, in the peculiar fact situation prevailing in the matter, to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner herein to prosecute the appeal diligently.

¶6

Hence, I set aside the order passed on 01.10.2010 by the Joint Collector in case No. F2/IA-20/2009 and restore the same. The Joint Collector will issue a fresh notice of hearing of the said appeal to the appellant as well as the respondents, who are represented by a counsel. In the absence of either the parties or their learned counsel prosecuting the matter, it is open to the Joint Collector to examine the matter on merits and decide the same.

¶7

The writ petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/-

¶8

(Rupees three thousand only) before the Joint Collector, Mahaboobnagar on or before 30.06.2011, representing the compensatory costs in the matter. On such deposit being made, it is open to the Joint Collector to utilize the said funds for any social welfare measure to be undertaken by him in the district.

¶9

This order is passed with the consent of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 herein and in view of the restoration of the appeal of the petitioner, since an opportunity is anyway being provided, for further participation in the enquiry before the Joint Collector, I consider it not necessary to put Respondents 3 to 6 on notice in this matter to save further loss of time.

¶10

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶11

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶12

14^th June 2011 ksld

Sri Arjunaiah v. The Joint Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Arjunaiah v. The Joint Collector

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

R.S.Kumar Sankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Arya Gouda Ediga Association Vs The District Registrar of Socieiteis

Kilari Venkateswarlu, S/o Pedda Avulaiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Pasha Miya Vs The District Collector

M/S. Southern Continental Contractors Ltd., (in Liqn.) Vs the Sub-Registrar

Vangala Vikram Vs The Commissioner and Inspector General Stamps and Registration