Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals against orders from the High Court of Uttarakhand that dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution and rejected an application for its restoration. The appellants, Ram Kumar Gupta and others, were the heirs of Smt. Devki Devi, who had been dispossessed from her shop due to actions taken by her manager, Pooranlal Shah. The manager obtained an ex parte order declaring a vacancy and was subsequently allotted the shop. The appellants challenged this order, which was remitted back for fresh consideration but ultimately upheld by the First Additional District Judge. They filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, which was later transferred to Uttarakhand and renumbered. After the death of Smt. Devki Devi, the appellants were substituted as parties. The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution and later rejected a restoration application due to the absence of their counsel, who had been appointed as Additional Advocate General. The Supreme Court found that the appellants had diligently pursued their case and should not be penalized for their counsel's absence. The court restored the writ petition, subject to the condition that the appellants pay costs to the respondent. The court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously upon compliance with the cost condition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Writ Petition - Grounds for Restoration - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 9 Rule 9 - The court restored the writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution, noting that the appellants were not represented due to their counsel's designation as Additional Advocate General, which constituted sufficient grounds for restoration. The court emphasized that the appellants should not be penalized for their counsel's absence and that they had diligently pursued the litigation since 1982. Held that the orders of dismissal and rejection were set aside (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution and rejection of the restoration application were justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court restored the writ petition to its original file, set aside the orders of dismissal and rejection, and directed the appellants to pay Rs.10,000 as costs to the respondent within two months. The High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petition within three months of the deposit.
Law Points
- Restoration of writ petition
- non-prosecution
- delay and latches
- representation by counsel
- costs
