Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Pr.Secy Karmik And ... vs Shambhu Nath Srivastava And 5 Others on 11 November, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 9 of 2019 In Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 10 of 2019 In Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 610 of 2017 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Pr.Secy Karmik And Another Respondent :- Shambhu Nath Srivastava And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Sinha,Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Rajiv Asthana,Ram Lalit Singh,Vrindavan Mishra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing Recall Application.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown for delay in filing Recall Application is sufficient.
4. Condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2019 PS Court No. - 34 Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 10 of 2019 In Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 610 of 2017 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Pr.Secy Karmik And Another Respondent :- Shambhu Nath Srivastava And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Respondent :- Vinod Sinha,Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Rajiv Asthana,Ram Lalit Singh,Vrindavan Mishra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandrika Prasad, Advocate, for applicants and learned Standing Counsel appearing for State.
2. This is Restoration/Recall Application under Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure in respect to our order dated 23.04.2019. There were five counsels whose names were shown as counsel for respondents-review applicants and in the entire application, we do not find any explanation as to why none of the counsels had appeared. In fact, this application has been filed by a new counsel who was not present earlier at all. In absence of any reason or explanation as to why counsel for respondents did not appear, we find no reason to recall order.
3. Moreover, we also required learned counsel for applicants to show as to what legal infirmity is there in the judgment dated 23.04.2019, which he also failed to point out except of saying that judgment is ex-parte. No ground for review, therefore, is made out.
4. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2019 PS