Ajab Singh Vs. Vipat Singh

Ajab Singh vs Vipat Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 26, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1043523

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/1043523
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 26, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajab Singh

Respondent

Vipat Singh

Excerpt

.....under section 5 of the limitation act. the present mcc is filed with a delay of 2 years and 70 days. the reason given by the learned counsel for the applicants in the application is that fa no.227/2010 was dismissed in not compliance to the order dated 23.2.2011. the applicants applied for the certified copy of the order on 31.5.2013 and they received the same on 16.6.2013. thereafter the present mcc could be filed. no other reason is mentioned for restoration of fa no.227/2010. this is the most awful situation in the case that in fa no.227/2010 the order was passed on 23.2.2011 with a direction that on payment of fresh profess fee along with requisites of registered post within seven days, notice of this admission be issued to the respondent no.2 and ultimately no profess fee was deposited by the learned counsel for the applicants. after keeping silence for more than two years.the present mcc is filed and no specific reason has been shown as to why such delay has been caused in filing the present mcc. after perusal of the record etc., it appears that no communication has been given from the side of the learned counsel for the applicants to the applicants. however, due to the fault of the advocate, the parties could not be punished. under such circumstances, this court has no option except to condone the delay of 2 years and 70 days in filing the present mcc. consequently, ia no.6606/13 is allowed and the delay of 2 years and 70 days is hereby condoned. since fa no.227/2010 was dismissed in absence of the respondents, therefore present mcc can be considered without appearance of the respondents. heard the learned counsel for the applicants. the applicants were furnishing the process fee in the past, and therefore due to one default that they could not furnish the process fee and required papers.which would have sent with the notice to the respondent no.2, the fa no.227/2010 was dismissed. therefore, one such default can be ignored. consequently, the.....

Full Judgment

MCC No.732/2013 26.06.2013 Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the applicants.

Heard on IA No.6606/13, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The present MCC is filed with a delay of 2 years and 70 days.

The reason given by the learned counsel for the applicants in the application is that FA No.227/2010 was dismissed in not compliance to the order dated 23.2.2011.

The applicants applied for the certified copy of the order on 31.5.2013 and they received the same on 16.6.2013.

Thereafter the present MCC could be filed.

No other reason is mentioned for restoration of FA No.227/2010.

This is the most awful situation in the case that in FA No.227/2010 the order was passed on 23.2.2011 with a direction that on payment of fresh profess fee along with requisites of registered post within seven days, notice of this admission be issued to the respondent No.2 and ultimately no profess fee was deposited by the learned counsel for the applicants.

After keeping silence for more than two yeaRs.the present MCC is filed and no specific reason has been shown as to why such delay has been caused in filing the present MCC.

After perusal of the record etc., it appears that no communication has been given from the side of the learned counsel for the applicants to the applicants.

However, due to the fault of the advocate, the parties could not be punished.

Under such circumstances, this Court has no option except to condone the delay of 2 years and 70 days in filing the present MCC.

Consequently, IA No.6606/13 is allowed and the delay of 2 years and 70 days is hereby condoned.

Since FA No.227/2010 was dismissed in absence of the respondents, therefore present MCC can be considered without appearance of the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants.

The applicants were furnishing the process fee in the past, and therefore due to one default that they could not furnish the process fee and required papeRs.which would have sent with the notice to the respondent No.2, the FA No.227/2010 was dismissed.

Therefore, one such default can be ignored.

Consequently, the present MCC is allowed.

Office is directed to restore FA No.227/2010 to its original number.

not the appellants are directed to comply the order dated 23.2.2011 within two weeks from today, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

With the aforesaid, present MCC is hereby disposed off.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Ajab Singh vs Vipat Singh Same Subject Education