Vishal Singh Vs. Ramcharan

Vishal Singh vs Ramcharan

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 31, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050168

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/1050168
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 31, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishal Singh

Respondent

Ramcharan

Excerpt

m.c.c.no.922/2013 31.07.2013 mr.s.k.garg, learned counsel for the applicants. learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents were not represented as the case has been dismissed for want of prosecution. heard on i.a.no.8356/2013, an application for condonation of delay. for the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, i find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration is made out. the delay is condoned. accordingly, i.a.no.8356/2013 is allowed. having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and taking into account the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit, i am satisfied that sufficient cause for restoration of the second appeal is made out. accordingly, the s.a.no.664/2001 is restored to file subject to payment of costs of rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) in the office of the m.p.high court legal services committee within a period of 10 days. accordingly, the mcc is allowed. (alok aradhe) judge rc

Full Judgment

M.C.C.No.922/2013 31.07.2013 Mr.S.K.Garg, learned counsel for the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents were not represented as the case has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

Heard on I.A.No.8356/2013, an application for condonation of delay.

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration is made out.

The delay is condoned.

Accordingly, I.A.No.8356/2013 is allowed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and taking into account the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient cause for restoration of the second appeal is made out.

Accordingly, the S.A.No.664/2001 is restored to file subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in the office of the M.P.High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 10 days.

Accordingly, the MCC is allowed.

(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Vishal Singh vs Ramcharan Same Subject Education