Suresh Chandra Agrawal vs Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Thr. Lrs Smt. ... on 16 January, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suresh Chandra Agrawal vs Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Thr. Lrs Smt. ... on 16 January, 2023

Bench: Rohit Arya

                                 1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                   ON THE 16 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                  MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 866 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1.    SURESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI
      BADRI PRASAD AGRAWAL, R/O ARYA SAMAJ
      ROAD SHIVPURI TEHSIL AND DISTRIT-SHIVPURI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI BADRI
      PRASAD AGRAWAL R/O NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE
      TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-SHIVPURI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                            .....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI ANIL MISHRA-ADVOCATE)

AND
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI BADRI
PRASAD      AGRAWAL,      THROUGH     LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
SMT. KAMINI GOYAL D/O SUNEEL KUMAR GOYAL D/O
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI SUNEEL
KUMAR GOYAL AGE:39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE RAMJANKI MANDIR KE PAS LOHIYA BAZAR,
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIVEK JAIN- ADVOCATE ON ADVANCE NOTICE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

This MCC is filed seeking restoration of Writ Petition No.3057/2011, which was dismissed by the OSD/ Registrar of this Court vide order dated 19/10/2016 for non-compliance of the common conditional order dated 2 02/09/2016.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-compliance of order passed by this Court dated 13/06/2016 has wrongly been attributed to the appellant. As a matter of fact, the order was passed granting 10 days' time to learned counsel for the respondent to file appropriate application for supplying information about the death of the sole respondent. That direction was not complied with by the respondent, hence, the writ petition could not have been dismissed as there was no default on the part of the petitioners (present applicants). Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no sooner the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the applicants, the instant MCC was filed.

Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondent appeared on advance notice does not oppose the aforesaid position.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is well evident that vide order dated 13/06/2016, time was granted to the respondent to comply with certain directions and not to the applicants, hence, the writ petition could not have been dismissed alleging non-compliance of the common conditional order on the part of the petitioners/ applicants. Consequently, the MCC is allowed. The Writ Petition No.3057/2011 is restored to its original number. Registry is directed to register the writ petition as per the present nomenclature and list before the appropriate Bench.

A copy of this order be placed in the record of Writ Petition No.3057/2011.

This M.C.C. stands disposed of accordingly.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2023.01.17 10:49:23 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court