SPA/333/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 2558 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                               AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

                 SEPCIAL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2021

                            18th AUGUST, 2022

Between:

Lalu Ram                                    ......          Appellant


and


State of Uttarakhand & others               ......         Respondents


Counsel for the appellant        :   None appears

Counsel for the respondents      :   Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief
                                     Holder    for  the    State    of
                                     Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1
                                     and 2



The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)



             None appears when the matter is called out.


2)           The appeal is in defect since 01.10.2021, which

has not been removed.


3)           We have perused the impugned judgment.


4)           The appellant had preferred the writ petition to

assail the recovery certificate issued in respect of an

outstanding loan. The appellant had earlier preferred Writ

Petition (M/S) No. 3322 of 2019, Lalu Ram Vs State of
                                2




Uttarakhand and others.        The Court had dealt with the

petitioner's case sympathetically directing him to deposit

Rs.10,000/-     within   one   month,     i.e.,   on     or   before

23.11.2019. The remaining amount was to be recovered

in twenty four equal monthly installments. Admittedly, the

appellant   did   not    comply    with   the     said    direction.

Consequently, a fresh recovery citation dated 10.07.2021

was issued against the petitioner for the amount of

Rs.2,95,368/-.     It is this recovery certificate which was

assailed in the writ petition in question.             The learned

Single Judge has not find any merit in the writ petition

and, consequently, dismissed the same.


5)            We find absolutely no reason to interfere with

the impugned order, even on merits.               The appeal is,

accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on

merits.


6)          In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,

also stands disposed of.



                                          ________________
                                          VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.



                                                  __________
                                                  R.C. Khulbe, J.

Dt: 18th AUGUST, 2022 Negi