Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2981/2013 of Yam Bahadur Limbu Vs Arun Bhonot AND ANOTHER on 30 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MS) No. 2981 of 2013 Yam Bahadur Limbu. ……….. Petitioner Versus Arun Bhonot & another. …………Respondents. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition (MS) No. 2981 of 2013
Yam Bahadur Limbu. ……….. Petitioner
Versus
Arun Bhonot & another. …………Respondents.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.11.2013 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2011.
2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that a suit, registered as SCC Suit No. 6 of 2004, was filed by the respondents / landlords against the petitioner / tenant for realization of rent and eviction. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.11.2010. Therefore, respondents / landlords moved an Application for restoration of the said suit under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. on 11.03.2011. The said Application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2011. In support of the said Application, an affidavit was also filed. Petitioner / tenant filed his objections against the said Application. It was stated by the respondents / landlords that respondent No. 1 was looking after the said case and, on 12.10.2010, he made an application for withdrawal of rent through his Advocate and, thereafter, he went to Moradabad. It was stated that, this was the only reason, that he was not present before the Court on 26.11.2010 when the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and, only on 09.03.2011, he came to know about the dismissal of the said suit. Soon thereafter, respondents moved the Application for restoration on 11.03.2011. The learned Judge, S.C.C., after hearing both the parties and after being satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the Application for the delay, allowed the said Application of the respondents / landlords subject to deposit of Rs. 500/- as costs and, by recalling the order dated 26.11.2010, restored the said suit to its original number.
3. I have heard the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner / tenant.
4. The delay in filing the Restoration Application has been sufficiently explained. If the case is decided on merits, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the court should not be hyper technical in such type of matters. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the matter.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
G
(B.S. Verma, J.) 30.12.2013