JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Having regard to the submissions made, this intra Court appeal is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. The special appeal is directed against the order dated 19.8.2014, where by, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition bearing No. 3018 (S/S) of 2000 for nobody being present; and with the observations that having gone through the pleadings, no case worth interference was found by the Court. The impugned order, in its entirety, reads as under:
1. Called in revised. None appeared to press this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner.
2. It appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.
3. However, I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that though the matter could not be attended in the revised call for the reasons and circumstances beyond the control of appellant but then, the fact of the matter had been in the petition, counter was awaited from the respondents, after the petition was allowed to be amended by the order dated 3.3.2014 wherein, though for typographical error the expression "impleadment" is mentioned instead of "amendment". Learned counsel points out with reference to the final direction in the order dated 3.3.2014, as also the subsequent orders dated 7.5.2014, 4.7.2014 and 31.7.2014 in the writ petition that the petition was in fact pending while awaiting counter-affidavit from the respondents.
(3.) From the order impugned its not explicit if the learned Single Judge has examined the amended petition and yet found the case not worthy of interference.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.