The High Court erred in analysing the evidence and restoring the application of the writ petition: Supreme Court
Case title: J.N Puri Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Case no.: SLP(Civil.) No(s). 24776 of 2020
Decided on: 29.01.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The current appeal stems from a decision by the high court’s divisional bench on the issue of the respondents’ acquisition of his land in 1987. The appellant claims that he is still in possession of the land. The writ petition was dismissed for a lack of prosecution.
The appellant filed an application for the restoration of the writ petition. It appears that the aforementioned restoration application was not pursued for an extended period of time, prompting the appellant to file yet another Writ Petition in 1999, this time requesting that the restoration application be pursued and an appropriate order issued. The high court has once again denied the restoration petition.
However, after receiving information from the Registry of the High Court of Uttarakhand under the RTI Act that the appellant’s writ petition had been dismissed on default on February 26, 1992, the appellant filed a recalling and restoration application, along with an application seeking condonation for the delay in filing the above recalling application, which was dismissed by the High Court.
Furthermore, a review application was filed against the above order, which was also dismissed.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
According to the counsel for the appellant, the application for restoration was filed on March 23, 1992, which is one month after the writ petition for non-prosecution was dismissed.
They drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, which admits the factum of filing the application dated March 23, 1992, seeking restoration to its original number.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court held that the High Court of Uttarakhand erred in stating that the application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated February 26, 1992, was filed seven years later after taking into account all of the available evidence.
According to the State of Uttar Pradesh’s counter-affidavit, paragraph 5, the restoration application was submitted within a month. No one ever gave the application a fair hearing.
The case has been brought back before the High Court of Uttarakhand, which will restore the appellant’s writ petition and expeditiously decide the case on its merits after providing all parties with a chance to be heard.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith