Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Rambharos

Dheeraj Kumar vs Rambharos

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 07, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050231

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/1050231
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 07, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dheeraj Kumar

Advocate Shri. J.K.Verma

Respondent

Rambharos

Excerpt

.....on lapse of two weeks from 22.8.2012 by virtue of the peremptory order and it is only when the counsel came to knot about the dismissal of the application for review on account of the peremptory order that he filed an application seeking restoration of the review petition along with an application for condonation of delay. it is stated that the counsel for the applicants came to knot for the firs.time on 30.11.2012 regarding the peremptory order and the dismissal of the application as a consequence thereof, therefore, he immediately moved this court by filing the application for restoration of review petition. from a perusal of the application it is evident that the counsel for the applicants knew about the fact that the case was listed before this court on 22.08.2012 and inspite of the fact that the case was listed before this court the counsel for the applicants has not furnished any explanation as to why he did not make any effort to find out what order was passed by this court on 22.08.2012. in fact there is no explanation as to why the applicants did not take any step to find out the order passed by the court on 22.8.2012 or the reason as to why the case was not listed thereafter. in view of the aforesaid, i find no reason or substantial ground or acceptable explanation for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of the review petition. consequently, i.a.no.14440/12 for condonation of delay as well as application for restoration both stand dismissed. (r.s.jha) judge msp

Full Judgment

MCC No.1475/2012 (Dheeraj Kumar and another versus Rambharos and otheRs.07.01.2013 Shri J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the applicants.

Heard.

The applicants have filed this application seeking restoration of review petition No.515/12.

It is stated that the review petition No.515/12 was listed before this court on 22.8.2012 for default and this court had granted two weeks time to the counsel for the applicants to remove the default failing which the review petition would stand automatically dismissed without reference to the court.

It is stated that as the lawyers were abstaining from work, the counsel for the applicants could not note the fact of passing the peremptory order by this court as a result of which the review petition stood dismissed on lapse of two weeks from 22.8.2012 by virtue of the peremptory order and it is only when the counsel came to knot about the dismissal of the application for review on account of the peremptory order that he filed an application seeking restoration of the review petition along with an application for condonation of delay.

It is stated that the counsel for the applicants came to knot for the fiRs.time on 30.11.2012 regarding the peremptory order and the dismissal of the application as a consequence thereof, therefore, he immediately moved this court by filing the application for restoration of review petition.

From a perusal of the application it is evident that the counsel for the applicants knew about the fact that the case was listed before this court on 22.08.2012 and inspite of the fact that the case was listed before this court the counsel for the applicants has not furnished any explanation as to why he did not make any effort to find out what order was passed by this court on 22.08.2012.

In fact there is no explanation as to why the applicants did not take any step to find out the order passed by the court on 22.8.2012 or the reason as to why the case was not listed thereafter.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason or substantial ground or acceptable explanation for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of the review petition.

Consequently, I.A.No.14440/12 for condonation of delay as well as application for restoration both stand dismissed.

(R.S.Jha) Judge msp

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dheeraj Kumar vs Rambharos Same Subject Education