Md KalimuddIn Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors

Md Kalimuddin vs State of Jharkhand and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 30, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1026216

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1026216
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Aug 30, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Md Kalimuddin

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors

Excerpt

.....of hearing of c.m.p. no.247 of 2013. learned j.c. to sr.s.c.i appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that though he has no objection for fixing date of early hearing of the petition but the prayer being for restoration of writ petition dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order, it can be disposed of even at this stage. learned counsel for the petitioner also agrees for the same. heard the parties. in c.m.p. no. 247 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for restoration of w.p.(s) no. 4133 of 2012. it has been stated that the said writ petition was listed under the heading 'for orders' on 1.5.2013. by the said order the petitioner was given two weeks' time for removing the defects. the advocate clerk was accordingly instructed for taking the required step within the prescribed period. but due to his mistake in counting of days, he took step one day after the prescribed time and the case was dismissed for non-compliance of the order. -2- it has been submitted that there was no wilful delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner. the defects could not be removed, within the peremptory time, under the said circumstance beyond his control. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the said contentions and has not opposed the application. considering that there was no deliberate laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner in not removing the defect within the prescribed period, the c.m.p. is allowed. w.p.(s) no.4133 of 2012 is restored to its original file and stage. i.a. no.6533 of 2013, accordingly, stands disposed of. (narendra nath tiwari, j) shamim/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.247 of 2013 with I.A. No.6533 of 2013 Md. Kalimuddin .......... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. ............ Opp. Parties .............. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI .............. For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate For the State : J.C. to Sr.S.C.I ............. 19/30.08.2013: In I.A. No. 6533 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for fixing an early date of hearing of C.M.P. No.247 of 2013. Learned J.C. to Sr.S.C.I appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that though he has no objection for fixing date of early hearing of the petition but the prayer being for restoration of writ petition dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order, it can be disposed of even at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also agrees for the same. Heard the parties. In C.M.P. No. 247 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for restoration of W.P.(S) No. 4133 of 2012. It has been stated that the said writ petition was listed under the heading 'For Orders' on 1.5.2013. By the said order the petitioner was given two weeks' time for removing the defects. The Advocate clerk was accordingly instructed for taking the required step within the prescribed period. But due to his mistake in counting of days, he took step one day after the prescribed time and the case was dismissed for non-compliance of the order. -2- It has been submitted that there was no wilful delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner. The defects could not be removed, within the peremptory time, under the said circumstance beyond his control. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the said contentions and has not opposed the application. Considering that there was no deliberate laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner in not removing the defect within the prescribed period, the C.M.P. is allowed. W.P.(S) No.4133 of 2012 is restored to its original file and stage. I.A. No.6533 of 2013, accordingly, stands disposed of. (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J) Shamim/

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Md Kalimuddin vs State of Jharkhand and ors Same Subject Education