Sukhdeo Pandey vs Director Of Agriculture U.P. Lko ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7472 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2004788 of 1990
 

 
Petitioner :- Sukhdeo Pandey
 
Respondent :- Director Of Agriculture U.P. Lko And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.Mannan,Abhishek Khare,Amit Srivastava,M P Sharma,Madhurkar Dixit,Pramod Sharma,S.C.Pandey,Sarwan Verma,Smt N Jain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J K Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

(C.M.Application No.167431 of 2021)

Cause shown is sufficient.

Accordingly, application is allowed and the delay in moving application seeking recall of the order dated 10.05.2010 is hereby condoned.

(C.M.Application No.167432 of 2021)

This petition was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 08.04.2008. Thereafter, C.M. Application No.54841(w) of 2008, dated 05.06.2008/07.07.2008 has been filed seeking modification/correction in the said final judgment and order dated 08.04.2008 on the ground that certain incorrect facts have been recorded in the judgment.

Basis of moving said application seeking modification of the judgment and order appears to be some information obtained by the petitioner from the department concerned under the Right to Information Act. However, the application seeking modification/correction of the judgment and order has been rejected on 11.05.2010 for non-prosecution.

An application has been moved to recall the order dated 11.05.2010.

Cause shown is sufficient.

Accordingly, application is allowed. The order dated 11.05.2010 is hereby set aside and the application for modification/correction, namely, C.M.Application No.54841(w) of 2008 is hereby restored to its original number.

.

(C.M.Application No.54841(w) of 2008)

Heard Ms. Sweta Shahi, holding brief of Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned State Counsel.

In our opinion, the application seeking modification of the final judgment in the manner in which it has been presented, is not maintainable. If the petitioner has discovered certain new facts or material or evidence having bearing on the merit of the case, he ought to have filed petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 08.04.2008.

Accordingly, the application seeking modification/correction in the order dated 08.04.2008 is hereby rejected with the liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application/petition seeking review of the said judgment.

Order Date :- 15.3.2023

Sanjay