Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6532 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rishipal And Another Respondent :- Station House Officer, Police Station Gulawathi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rewti Raman Patel
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.K.Malviya holding brief of Sri R.R.Patel who appears on behalf of the caveators.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 23.5.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bulandshahr in Misc. Case No. 319 of 2017(C.N.R.U.P.B.U. 050009382017)(Smt. Parul Sirohi and another Vs. Rishipal Singh and others) arising out of Original Suit No. 20 of 2017 (Rishipal Singh & another Vs. Station House Officer, P.S. Gulawathi, Pargana Agauta, Tehsil & District-Bulanshahr and others).
At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting- respondents/caveators apprised to the Court regarding the order passed by this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 3414 of 2017 (Rishipal & Another Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others). The said petition was preferred with a request to decide the injunction application in the aforesaid suit within stipulated time period. Finally, the said petition was disposed of on 24.5.2017 with the following observations.
"From the order-sheet of Original Suit no.20 of 2017 it appears that notices have been issued to the other side for putting in appearance on the interim injunction application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is disposed of with an observation that on the next date fixed in the matter, the court concerned shall examine whether the notices have been served on the other side or not and if notices have been served on the other side, the application of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, unless there is any legal impediment in doing so.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. "
Learned counsel for the contesting-respondents/caveators, in this backdrop, states that probably the aforesaid order had never been brought to the notice of the Court concerned and finally the ex-parte decree had been passed on 4.8.2017. Against the said order, the respondent second-set/caveators moved an application for recall, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 319 of 2017, under Section 151 C.P.C. to which the petitioners filed a detailed objection. Finally, the said recall application has been allowed by the order impugned setting aside the ex-parte decree and order dated 4.8.2017 and as such, it is sought to be contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and it has also been contended that the petitioners have also not approached to this Court with a clean hand by disclosing the aforementioned petition earlier preferred by them before this Court.
In this backdrop, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as the order passed by this Court and does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 A.K.Srivastava