AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.
Writ petitionerappellant aggrieved by an order dated 05.08.2004, passed by learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 44355 of 1999, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952.
In the writ petition filed by the appellant, vide order dated 14.10.1999, he was directed to serve respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 personally within two weeks. Thereafter, matter was taken up on 05.08.2004 and it was found that appellant had not taken any step for service of notice on respondents no. 2, 3 & 4. Accordingly, learned Judge dismissed the writ petition under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, 1952.
Mr. Lallan Verma appears on behalf of the appellant.
Respondent no. 1 is represented by learned Standing Counsel.
Mr. Verma submits that in case the appellant had not taken steps, the writ petition ought to have been listed for dismissal under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, 1952. He submits that the writ petition has been dismissed without listing a case for the said purpose.
Ordinarily, we would have not interfered with the order as the appellant''s negligence is gross. However, the order of dismissal was passed without listing the petition under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, 1952.
We, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal. As there is a gross negligence on the part of the appellant, we deem it expedient to award cost.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The order impugned is set aside with cost of Rs. 5,000/ to be paid by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. In case cost is not deposited within the time aforesaid, the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed without further reference to the Bench.