Special Appeal against an order deferring hearing of a Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable, holding that deferral is not a judgment attracting Rule 5 appeal. Petitioners retain right to apply for early hearing.
Special appeal dismissed; appellants retain right to apply for early hearing if matter not heard as directed.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 431 of 2019
Ram Sevak & others …….Appellants Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others …….Respondents
Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, Advocate for the appellants-writ petitioners. Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Dated: 01st May, 2019
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, C.J. (Oral)
This appeal is preferred against the proceedings in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1059 of 2019 dated 25.04.2019, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the amendment application filed by the appellants-writ petitioners, directed that the amended memo of the petition be filed within one week, and the matter be listed on 02.05.2019.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C. J.) 01.05.2019 01.05.2019
NISHANT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules can lie against an order deferring the hearing of a writ petition.
Whether a direction to file an amended memo within a week and list the matter constitutes a judgment appealable under Rule 5.
Ram Sevak & others
State of Uttarakhand & others
Ramesh Ranganathan
N.S. Dhanik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
