Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2541/2021 on 6 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                   Office Notes, reports, orders
SL.                or proceedings or directions
          Date                                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                  and Registrar's order with
                            Signatures


      06.06.2025                                   Restoration Application No. MCC/6/2023
                                                   Delay Condonation Application No. IA/7/2023
                                                   In
                                                   WPMS No. 2541 of 2021
                                                   Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anshu Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 was filed by petitioners, challenging orders dated 16.11.2017, passed by First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Original Suit No. 57 of 2010 and also the judgment dated 06.09.2021, passed by Second Additional and District Judge in Civil Revision No. 03 of 2018. The writ petition was decided by coordinate Bench vide order dated 02.12.2021.

3. Subsequently, a Recall Application was filed by respondents, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.02.2023.

4. Today, the matter is listed on Restoration Application in the Recall Application. There is delay of 32 days in filing Restoration Application. Delay is condoned. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application is disposed of.

5. For the reasons indicated, Restoration Application is allowed. The Recall Application is restored to its original number.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 24.11.2021 and this fact was not brought to this Court and the impugned judgment was rendered under the impression that the suit is still pending.

7. This submission of respondents' counsel, however, is disputed by petitioners' counsel, who refers to para 6 of the impugned judgment where it is mentioned that if the suit is not dismissed, then the suit shall not be dismissed for 30 days.

8. Be that as it may. The grounds taken by respondents for seeking recall of the judgment are not sufficient for recalling/reviewing the judgment.

9. Thus, the Recall Application is rejected, however, it is made clear that the observation if any made in the judgment sought to be recalled, will not prejudice the Trial Court while considering the Restoration Application of the plaintiff.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.06.2025 Mahinder/