Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 51246 of 2005 Petitioner :- Sewa Lal Chaurasia And Another Respondent :- A.D.J. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Prasad,Birendra Kumar,Yatindra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
As per office report dated 05.04.2006 notice on respondent nos.6 to 8 is deemed sufficient.
Despite time being granted to the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent nos.3 and 5, no counter affidavit has been filed.
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.04.2005 passed by respondent no.1 in Civil Revision No.242 of 2004.
Perusal of the revisional order shows that the same has been passed allowing the application of the defendants under order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, which was dismissed on the ground of delay only. The revisional court has recorded the finding that the dismissal of the application for recall on the ground of delay is not justified and therefore, it has condoned the delay and directed the Trial Court to decide the application of the defendants under order 9 Rule 13 of CPC on merits.
This court does not find any error in the order passed by the revisional court.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismsised.
The Trial Court is directed to decide the application of the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 SS