Special Appeal No. 507 of 2014. Case: Dina Nath Vs Thakur Bal Gopal Jee Maharaj. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Special Appeal No. 507 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Anurag Khanna, Adv. and For Respondents: Kshitij Shailendra and Pankaj Agarwal, Advs. |
| Judges | Vineet Saran and Vijay Lakshmi, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226, 227 |
| Citation | 2014 (7) ADJ 390 |
| Judgement Date | July 15, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
-
This is an intra Court appeal filed against the order dated 9.4.2014 whereby the recall application filed by the appellant (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) has been rejected. The preliminary question to be decided by this Court is as to whether a Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of the Court") would be maintainable against an order rejecting the recall application on merits. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioners Thakur Bal Gopal Jee Maharaj and others had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53870 of 1999 challenging an order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Hathras under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act No. XIII of 1972"). The appellant herein was respondent No. 2 in the said writ petition. By judgment and order dated 5.5.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge, the writ petition was allowed on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petition, although the learned counsel for the respondents was not present even in the revised list. An application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant herein (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) with the prayer to recall the order dated 5.5.2010 passed in writ petition No. 53870 of 1999. The said application was heard and rejected by the impugned order dated 9.4.2014, which is reproduced below:
Order on Recall Application No. 155396 of 2010
-
Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri J.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
-
There are ten counsels, whose names are shown in the cause list appearing on behalf of respondents and still none appeared, as a result whereof, writ petition was decided in absence of counsel for the respondents vide order dated 5.5.2010.
-
This application has been filed for recall of aforesaid order on behalf of respondents through their counsel Sri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate, stating that case could not be marked in his office. It is not the case that authority of other counsels have been withdrawn or none could mark the case. There is no justification, therefore, for non appearance of any of the so many counsels representing respondents. I, therefore, do not find any reason to recall order dated 5.5.2010.
-
Rejec...
To continue reading
Request your trial