AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate and Sri Krishna Chandra, Advocate.
One Anand Mohan Rastogi preferred a writ petition No. 5470 (RC) of 1093 assailing the order dated 27.7.1983 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Lucknow. Nav Neet Lal Rastogi, who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid writ petition has filed a separate writ petition assailing the aforesaid order dated 27.7.1983, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 5929 (RC) of 1983.
Both the above referred writ petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 21.4.2010.
Thereafter, an application for recall of the order dated 21.4.2010 was moved in writ petition No. 5929 (RC) of 1983 but inadvertently number was wrongly mentioned as writ petition No. 5470 (RC) of 1983. It is for this reason the order is to be recalled though the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.4.2010 and the same be treated as judgment in Writ Petition No. 5929 (RC) of 1983.
Sri Arif Khan, Senior Advocate has submitted that as a matter of fact no application for recall has been moved in writ petition No. 5470 (RC) of 1983 and the inadvertent error has caused serious injustice to the petitioner. He also pointed that Regular Suit No. 20 of 1976 has been dismissed and as such no useful purpose would be served for remitting the matter to the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow (Civil Supplies) for deciding the matter a fresh.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is provided that the judgment rendered in writ petition No. 5470 (RC) of 1983 Anand Mohan Rastogi v. Nav Neet Lal Rastogi and Ors. shall be read as judgment in writ petition No. 5929 (RC) of 1982 Navneet Lal v. 1st Additional District Judge and Ors.. In view of the fact that Regular Suit No. 20 of 1976 has been decided by the judgment and order dated 24.3.2001, copy whereof has been produced before me, the operative portion of the judgment dated 29.4.2010 whereby a direction for deciding the case by the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate(Civil Supplies) has been issued, is deleted. As the Regular Suit No. 20 of 1976 has been dismissed, opposite parties are directed to ensure that the possession of the premises in question is restored to the petitioner of writ petition No. 5929 (RC) of 1983 expeditiously, say within a period of three months.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, Civil Misc. Application No. 56789 of 2010 is disposed of finally. As far as writ petition No. 5470 (RC) of 1983 is concerned, since no application for recall of the order dated 21.4.2010 has been moved, the order dated 21.4.2010 dismissing the writ petition for default, shall remain intact.