Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. KAMALA DEVI DESHARWANI and OTHERSversusDAKKHI LAL JAISWAL

Decided

Holding

The revision is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners, Smt. Kamala Devi Desharwani and others, filed a civil revision (No. 347 of 2009) against Dakkhi Lal Jaiswal. Three counsels were appointed for the revisionists, but only one appeared, while the other two were absent without filing any adjournment request. The respondent's counsel, Chandan Sharma, was represented by Akshay Pratap, who was present in court. The bench observed that the revision application had not been prosecuted due to the petitioners' counsel's non‑appearance and lack of request for time. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision for want of prosecution and discharged any interim order that might have been in force.

Issues considered

  • Whether the revision application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioners' counsel's non‑appearance and failure to seek adjournment

Subjects

  • revision
  • civil procedure
  • want of prosecution
  • court procedure
  • High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Judgment

                                        Court No. - 18

                                        Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 347 of 2009

                                        Revisionist :- Smt. Kamala Devi Desharwani And Others
                                        Opposite Party :- Dakkhi Lal Jaiswal
                                        Counsel for Revisionist :- Vishnu Sahai,B. Dayal,K.D. Tiwari
                                        Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandan Sharma

                                        Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

                                        Case called out in revised list.

                                        There are three counsels appearing in this case on behalf of the
                                        revision applicants, one of them has sent illness slip, however,
                                        other two counsels are neither present themselves, nor sent any
                                        adjournment request. However, Sri Akshay Pratap, learned
                                        Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel
                                        for the respondent is present.

                                        The matter pertains to the year 2009.

                                        In view of the above, this revision is dismissed for want of
                                        prosecution.

                                        Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

                                        Order Date :- 19.10.2022
                                        IrfanUddin




Digitally signed by IRFAN UDDIN
SIDDIKI
Date: 2022.10.20 13:32:20 IST
Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.