Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Order XLI Rule 19 CPC
  • Order XLI Rule 19,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Order XLI Rule 19 CPC
  • Order XLI Rule 19,
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Chandra Bhushan v. Babu Lal And Another

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

    MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2085 of 2017 Court No. - 9

    HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

    1. This is plaintiff's petition. The suit filed by plaintiff-petitioner for cancellation of sale was dismissed against which a civil appeal was preferred. The said civil appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution in which an application for restoration under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC was moved which was also dismissed in default. Instead of filing restoration application for recalling the order passed on application under Order XLI Rule 19, a second restoration application was preferred for recalling the order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

    2. The court below has rejected the restoration application on the ground that the said application was not in a proper format and has been filed for recalling the order passed on dismissal of civil appeal which was already dismissed.

    3. Learned counsel for defendant-respondent has opposed the writ petition on the ground that the second restoration application has been dismissed and a reasoned order has been passed by trial court.

    4. This Court finds that due to error of the counsel who had filed the appeal and restoration application, the petitioner could not be faulted.

    5. This Court is setting aside the order passed by appellate court dismissing the restoration application at a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by plaintiff-petitioner to respondent, within one month. In case, the said Versus

    Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Srivastava, Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar

    Upadhyay, Vishal Shukla

    Counsel for Respondent(s) : Santosh Kumar Tiwari

    Chandra Bhushan

    .....Petitioner(s)

    Babu Lal And Another

    .....Respondent(s)

    1

    amount is deposited within a month by plaintiff-petitioner to defendant- respondent, the order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution shall stand set aside and the appeal shall be heard on merits. However, in case, the amount is not deposited, the order passed by court below shall revive.

    5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

    August 3, 2026

    (V. S. SINGH)

    A227 No. 2085 of 2017

    2

    (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Chandra Bhushan v. Babu Lal And Another
    (Aug 3, 2026)