Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Rajinder Kumar S/o Mangoo – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K Th. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner through the medium of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashment of order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2, by virtue of which the application for recalling of order dated 16.10.2023 in case titled, “Rajinder Kumar Vs. State & Ors.” has been dismissed, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is illegal and against the mandate of law.
2. The short controversy involved in the instant petition is that the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside abatement of the original appeal vide order dated 03.01.2013, which was pending adjudication before the Deputy Commissioner Jammu and the same was subsequently transferred to Respondent No. 2-Regional Director Survey and Land Records (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Udhampur, who dismissed the same vide order dated16.10.2023 for non-prosecution on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below has ignored the cause projected by the petitioner before it, as the petitioner met with the serious accident, as a consequence whereof, the petitioner had to undergo a su
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for recalling an order due to lack of merit and failure to provide justifiable grounds for delay, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
A court order recalling a previous decision must offer substantial reasons; parties should not be deprived of the right to present their evidence without justified cause.
If either of respondent’s witnesses is absent on said date, right to lead evidence of said witnesses shall stand closed.
Courts must grant opportunity to file condonation application under Section 5 Limitation Act for short delays in restoration of suits dismissed in default, avoiding hyper-technical dismissals to prio....
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
A litigant must diligently pursue their case, and ignorance of a suit's dismissal cannot justify lengthy delays in seeking restoration, especially when represented by counsel.
The court emphasized that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement should be considered in light of the circumstances and that a lenient view should be adopted in such case....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
