Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2538 (ALL)

Maiki Devi (Smt. ) v. Dropdi Devi

2012-10-31

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2012
Sudhir Agarwal, J.— This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.07,2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar rejecting petitioner's application for recall of order dated 14.03.2007, whereby her application for restoration of her possession over the disputed premises was rejected on the ground of default. 2. In fact neither petitioner nor her counsel appeared before the court below on 14.03.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner fell ill on 11.03.2007 and her illness continued upto 30.03.2007, therefore, she could not appear. In this regard my attention is drawn to a medical certificate, copy whereof has been filed on page 20 of the writ petition. A perusal whereof shows that it is dated 19.04.2007 while the application for recall of order is dated 12.03.2007. In fact there also I find some discrepancy in the date inasmuch as on the application the typewritten date is 12.03.2007 which has been corrected by hand as 12.04.2007 but in the affidavit filed in support of application, typewritten date is still continued as 12.03.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a sheer typing error inasmuch as the application was filed on 12.04.2007 as mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition. 4. Even if it is taken to be 12.04.2007, I find that medical certificate was issued on 19.04.2007 and, therefore, on the date when application was filed no such certificate was available to petitioner, hence filing of said medical certificate with application does not arise at all. 5. Moreover, the court below has also observed that petitioner could not disclose her nature of illness and medical certificate shows illness of bronchitis? hyperpyrexia which is a common problem to all the aged persons and that does not render any person unfit to perform physical function. Before this Court also learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any manifest error in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Dismissed. _____________