Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. & Another vs Ravindra Pratap Singh Airen (Retd.) on 13 November, 2014
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- SECOND APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 355 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P. & Another Respondent :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Airen (Retd.) Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Nagaich,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Pathak Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
4. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 13.11.2014 SKS Court No. - 34 Case :- SECOND APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 355 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P. & Another Respondent :- Ravindra Pratap Singh Airen (Retd.) Counsel for Appellant :- V.K. Nagaich,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Pathak Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. The delay in filing this appeal having been condoned vide order of date passed on Delay Condonation Application, let the appeal be registered with regular number and the old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.
2. Learned standing counsel appeared for defendant-appellants. As requested by the standing counsel for the appellants, I proceed to hear the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC today itself.
3. This is defendant-appellants second appeal under section 100 CPC having lost from both the courts below inasmuch as defendants' Original Suit No. 844 of 2003 was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 and the said judgment has been confirmed in appeal by lower Appellate Court dismissing defendants Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2009 vide judgment dated 11.8.2009 and decree dated 20.8.2009.
4. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which could not be shown perverse in any manner. It is not the case of the appellants that any relevant piece of evidence was ignored or any impermissible or irrelevant evidence was taken into account or there is any other perversity, legal or otherwise, in the judgments impugned in this second appeal. I, therefore, do not find that any substantial question of law has arisen in this Second Appeal warranting consideration by this Court.
5. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.11.2014 SKS