Dal Chand vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 13493 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 426 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Dal Chand
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Kumar Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

In Re: Delay Condonation Application

This appeal has been filed with a reported delay of one day.

In view of above, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay.

The delay is condoned.

Delay Condonation Application is allowed.

Order on Appeal

We have heard Sri Atul Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This intra-court appeal questions the order dated 20.7.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.73170 of 2005 by which a Modification Application No. 2 of 2012 filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) seeking modification of the writ court order dated 1.5.2012 has been rejected.

The writ petitioner (appellant herein) had filed Writ-A No.73170 of 2005 with multiple prayers. The writ court by the judgment and order dated 1.5.2012 allowed the writ petition by addressing three out of the five prayers made in the writ petition.

The modification application which was filed by the petitioner was to include the relief sought vide prayer nos. 4 and 5 which were not addressed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition on 1.5.2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, the said prayers ought to have been accepted and therefore, the modification application filed by the writ petitioner ought to have been allowed.

We do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner because from a perusal of the order dated 1.5.2012, we find that the learned Single Judge had not at all addressed the prayers 4 and 5 while deciding the writ petition. May be those prayers were not pressed at all.

In such circumstances, the modification application was misconceived because, ordinarily, an application to modify an order is either to clarify the order or to make certain observations or to make alterations/corrections in the operative part of the order particularly, when the proceedings are pending. As the prayer 4 and 5 was not at all addressed by the learned Single Judge and the petition stood disposed off, the appropriate course for the petitioner was to apply for review of the order to the extent it did not address the other reliefs sought in the writ petition.

In view of above, we do not find any merit in the special appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 19.9.2022

piyush