Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 262 (UTT)

Jagat Ram v. Pratap Ram

2010-05-03

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, V.K.BIST

body2010
JUDGMENT J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The appellant herein, was respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 23619 of 1995, which was filed by respondent No. 1 Pratap Ram in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellant herein, i.e. respondent No. 4 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, was duly served, in the proceedings being conducted at Allahabad. 2. The composite State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated on 09.11.2000, leading to the creation of the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the successor State of Uttarakhand. Consequent upon the reorganization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 23619 of 1995 was transferred to this Court. Before this Court, the aforesaid writ petition was re-numbered as Writ Petition (M/S) No. 7274 of 2001. 3. The appellant herein, i.e. respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 23619 of 1995, had no knowledge or notice of the transfer of the aforesaid writ petition or the date of its hearing before this Court. He had also no knowledge of its new number. The instant factual position has also been depicted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the appellant. The factual position, asserted at the hands of the appellant, has not been disputed by respondent No. 1 Pratap Ram by filing any response to the same. 4. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 7274 of 2001 was disposed of by an order dated 18.10.2005. Naturally, the appellant was un-represented before this Court. Thereupon, the appellant preferred a Review / Recall Application bearing No. 215 of 2006. The aforesaid application was also dismissed by this Court on 26.11.2007. 5. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the orders dated 18.10.2005 and 26.11.2007, is that, the appellant must be treated as unserved before the learned Single Judge, and that, his non-appearance before the learned Single Judge, was for no fault of his own. As such, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the orders dated 18.10.2005 and 26.11.2007 deserve to be set aside, so as to enable the appellant to get an effective opportunity of hearing in the disposal of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 7274 of 2001. 6. Despite opportunity granted, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 – Pratap Ram states, that he is not in a position to controvert the factual position noticed herein above. 7. 6. Despite opportunity granted, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 – Pratap Ram states, that he is not in a position to controvert the factual position noticed herein above. 7. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that it is in the interest of justice, that the orders dated 18.10.2005 and 26.11.2007 be set aside and the main writ petition [being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 7274 of 2001] be ordered to be restored to its original number, with a further direction, that the same be listed for hearing on 14th July, 2010. Ordered accordingly. 8. The parties shall appear before the concerned Court, either in person or through counsel, on 14th July, 2010. 9. The instant Special Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.