Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2112 (ALL)

Maya Devi v. In-charge District Judge, Lucknow

2018-10-04

SANJAY HARKAULI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by In-charge District Judge, Lucknow dated 28.1.20015 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. In turn, the said revision was filed against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.36, Lucknow on 16.12.2014 whereby application for restoration of the suit has been rejected. 4. The record has been perused. 5. The civil suit was dismissed in default on 6.2.2008. An application for restoration was filed on 2.3.2013 after a span of five years. The ground for not filing the restoration application earlier, as explained by the petitioner was that she remained ill as she was suffering from diabetes and blood pressure. However, in support of the illness, certain medical certificates pertaining to the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were filed but no proof of medical ailment for the year 2012 and January and February, 2013 were filed. In the said circumstances, the learned trial court found that the delay in filing the restoration application has not been duly explained and accordingly rejected the restoration application of the petitioner/plaintiff. 6. Orders of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated 16.12.2014 were challenged before the District Judge, Lucknow by way of Civil Revision. The learned Incharge District Judge heard petitioner's counsel and again observed in his order dated 28.1.2015 that for the year 2012 and the early part of the year 2013, no sufficient explanation for the delay was coming forth. The restoration application was delayed by a period of five years and 22 days. He accordingly held that there is no error in the orders passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and dismissed the revision. 7. By way of this writ petition, the orders passed by the revisional court have been challenged. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only prayed for liberal view in the matter but on the other hand, the relief claimed in the suit was an equitable relief for injunction and for grant of equitable relief, it is a settled principle that the plaintiff should be vigilant about his/her rights and the person claiming such an equitable relief, should not be guilty of laches. 9. 9. Though the plaintiff is a lady, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, however a delay of five years and 22 days and in the years prior to 2012, the ailment is merely diabetes and blood pressure. No sufficient evidence has been shown for the court to infer that the petitioner was suffering from such an ailment that she was not in a position to contact her counsel for moving the restoration application with promptitude. 10. No sufficient ground could be shown which would warrant interference in the orders of the learned courts below by way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.