IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Chandrika Prasad Pandey And Another - Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Prasad And Others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 394 Of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Provides for the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory by the High Courts – Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing whereby Civil Revision has been dismissed in default of appearance – Further prayer challenging order passed in Regular Suit has also been made – Held, It appears that against order impugned in present writ petition in Suit proceedings, Civil Revision has already been filed and therefore there is no occasion for this Court at this stage to interfere in order – So far as order passed in Civil Revision is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner seeks liberty to file appropriate application seeking recall/restoration – Petition stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
[Manish Mathur, J.]
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties stand dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 17.12.2022 whereby Civil Revision No.40 of 2022 has been dismissed in default of appearance. Further prayer challenging order dated 19.08.2019 passed in Regular Suit No.479 of 1998 has also been made.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that predecessor in interest of opposite parties had filed suit for cancellation of Will which was registered as Regular Suit No.479 of 1998 in which impugned order dated 19.08.2019 has been passed against which aforesaid revision was filed and has been dismissed in default of appearance.
4. In view of submissions advanced, it appears that against order impugned in present writ petition dated 19.08.2019 in Suit proceedings, Civil Revision No.40 of 2022 has already been filed and therefore there is no occasion for this Court at this stage to interfere in order dated 19.08.2019. So far as order dated 17.12.2022 passed in Civil Revision is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner seeks liberty to file appropriate application seeking recall/restoration.
5. In view of aforesaid, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to file application seeking recall of order dated 17.12.2022 and for restoration of Civil Revision No.40 of 2022. In case such an application is filed, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Gonda may decide the same expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date application is filed, in case there is no other legal impediment.
6. Benefit of this order shall be available to petitioners only in case they cooperate in early disposal of the proceedings.
7. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Revision petition closed as infructuous due to dismissal of underlying suit.
A petition may be withdrawn with permission if there is no objection from the opposing party and the applicant may pursue further recourse under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Failure to prosecute a case diligently can lead to dismissal of the petition.
A revision petition is not maintainable when an appeal is the appropriate legal remedy as outlined in the Civil Procedure Code.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.