TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 3rd of October, 2008 passed in CLMA No. 6551 of 2008 and MCC No. 1153 of 2008 respectively of the High Court of Uttarakhand, whereby the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition (Misc.)Single No.7361 of 2001 for non prosecution and rejected the application for restoration of the writ petition on condonation of delay in filing the same. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The deceased mother of the appellants Smt. Devki Devi was dispossessed from her shop on account of deceptive acts of her Manager, namely, Pooranlal Shah who was engaged by her to run the business of confectionery (Halwai) after the death of her father. The said Manager got an ex parte order for declaring vacancy under Section 16(1) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also allowed by the High Court. However, by an order dated 28th of December, 2007, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non- prosecution. For restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution, an application was filed by the appellants through their learned counsel Shri Bindesh Kumar Gupta. Since Sh. Gupta did not appear at the time the said application for restoration was listed for hearing i.e. on 26th of March, 2008, the said application for restoration was also rejected by a learned Judge of the High Court for non- prosecution. Sometime in the month of September, 2008, a second application for restoration of the writ petition was filed by the appellants saying that since Sh. Gupta was appointed as the Additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Keeping this fact in mind and the fact that the appellants could not be represented at the time of hearing of the writ petition, we feel it appropriate to restore the writ petition to its original file in order to give an opportunity to the appellants to contest the same on merits. As noted hereinabove, for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution, an application for restoration was filed by the appellants which was rejected only on the ground of delay and latches. But on a perusal and on proper examination of the record of this case, we find that no delay was caused by the appellants in filing the application for restoration of the writ petition. In any view of the matter, the appellants cannot be punished for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he writ petition is restored to its original file. However, considering the facts and circumstances and length of the matter being kept pending in court, we restore this writ application subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit and pay a sum of ₹ 10,000/- as costs to the respondent within two months from the date of filing of a copy of this order in the High Court. We make it clear that in the event, the amount of cost, as indicated above, is not deposited within the time specified herein, the appeals shall stand dismissed and the impugned orders shall stand affirmed. In the event, the cost, as indicated, is deposited within the time specified herein above, the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
