Teeka Ram vs Lekh Raj
2023 Latest Caselaw 7703 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2265 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Teeka Ram
 
Respondent :- Lekh Raj
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Mohan Srivastava,V.S. Rajpoot
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vikram Singh,Anita Singh,Nirmla Kumari,Prem Babu Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

"(i) issue order or direction by setting aside the order dated 22.8.2012 filed as Annexure No.3, order dated 12.7.2013 passed by Additional civil Judge (J.D.) Court No.23 Etah filed as Annexure No.5 and order dated 27.1.2017 so far it relates to cause of absence passed by Additional District Judge Court No.7, Etah filed as Annexure No.7."

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the one Lekh Raj respondent herein has filed the Original Suit No.940 of 1999, in which an ex parte order was passed against the defendant- petitioner by the Trial Court on 22.8.2012. Immediately, thereafter an application was filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. which was number as Application No.4-C (2). The same was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 12.7.2013. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, an appeal being Appeal No. 35 of 2013 was filed by the defendant- petitioner in the Court of Additional District Judge, Etah. The same was also rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Etah, vide order dated 27.1.2017. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no cogent reasons were given in the orders impugned.

On the other hand, Sri Vikarm Singh, learned counsel for respondent submits that both the orders are passed by the court below is in accordance with law. It is further submitted that no cogent reasons were given by the defendant- petitioner in filing the recall application. It is also submitted that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012 passed against him, he should challenge the same by filing an appeal.

After the arguments so made by learned counsel for the respondent, an ultimate prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned by way of filing an appeal.

This prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without interfering with the orders under challenged, the present petition is finally disposed of permitting the defendant- petitioner to file an appeal as provided in law before the authority concerned along with the delay condonation application. The authority concerned shall decide the application sympathetically.

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned orders to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photocopy of the same on record.

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

S.K.