Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1362/2004 of DINESH CHANDRA JOSHI Vs CIVIL JUDGE, J.D. NAINITAL and ORS. on 24 December 2004
1362 of 2004 Hon. P.C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. division), Nainital whereby the application of the defendant was allowed and the Civil Suit No. 8 or
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.
W.P. (MS) No. 1362 of 2004
Hon. P.C. Pant, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. division), Nainital whereby the application of the defendant was allowed and the Civil Suit No. 8 or 2004 was restored, after condoning the delay in filling the application (for restoration). I see no illegality in the impugned order or jurisdictional error which requires intervention of this Court under the writ jurisdiction or the revisional supervisory jurisdiction (article 227 of the Constitution).
Learned trial court has given detailed reasons for condoning the delay in moving application in order No. IX rule 13 and also satisfied itself as to the illness of the plaintiff on the date he absented from the court. The learned trial court has put a condition of payment of cost of Rs. 200/- to the defendant.
In the circumstances, the impugned order needs no interference and the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.
Dt. 24.12.2004 SJ
(P.C. Pant, J.)