CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(2005) 08 AHC CK 0121

Ganga Prasad vs Ajab Narain

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 7 August 2005

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.Devraj, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Restoration No. 85 of 2003-04`

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 341 words

M. Devaraj, Member.

1.

This restoration application has been filed on 362004 against the order dated 2632004.

2.

Heard the counsels for both the parties. The learned counsel for applicant argued that since the clerk had wrongly noted the date, he was not present in the Court on 2632004 and hence the restoration application has been dismissed for want of prosecution; that the client should not suffer for the mistake on the part of his counsel; he has filed application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay if any; though the application against the order dismissing the restoration application can be filed within three years and finally argued that this restoration application may be allowed. He drew my attention towards 1993 ACJ 202, 1981 AIR 1400, 1993 RD 116, 1986 RD 134 and 1985 AWC 347.

3.

On the other hand the counsel for oppositeparty argued that originally revision was dismissed on 151997 on merit. This order was passed after refusing to intertain the adjournment application moved by the counsel for Ganga Prasad and against this order restoration application was filed on 2951997 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18111997, again another restoration application was filed on 2171998 which was dismissed on 2632004 against which the present restoration application has been filed and this is time barred and hence it should be rejected.

4.

Perused the file carefully. It is clear that the order dated 151997 has been passed on merit after refusing to entertain the adjournment application moved by the counsel for Ganga Prasad and hence the order dated 151997 cannot be said to be exparte order. This restoration application has been filed after a period of more than 2 months. From the file it is clear that the applicant just wants to linger on the proceeding and to harass the other party which cannot be allowed by this Court. Accordingly in my view this restoration application should be dismissed and therefore, it is hereby dismissed. Let this Court''s file be consigned to record room.