HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2606 of 2016 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.3.2016 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Misc.Case No.241/74/2008 by which delay condonation application filed in support of restoration application filed for recalling the order dated 17.8.2007 has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are that an award was passed on 13.5.2003 at Kanpur and according to the petitioner, the same was ex parte. Thereafter, the award was put for execution at Kanpur which was transferred from Kanpur to Lucknow by order dated 3.8.2004. After coming to know about the award, predecessor in interest of the petitioners filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 23.5.2005. The respondent has filed objections to the application on 14.7.2005. During pendency of the application, predecessor in interest of petitioner died on 17.3.2006. Application for substitution was filed for substituting the petitioners on 30.5.2006 which was allowed on 18.9.2006 and petitioners were substituted. The petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners which was being represented by the petitioners after substitution was dismissed in default on 17.8.2007. Petitioner filed an application for recall of order dated 17.8.2007 alongwith delay Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Yadav, Ashish Kumar Singh, Birendra Kumar, Chandan Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Neeta Bajpai And 2 Ors. .....Petitioner(s) Subhashini Khandoori .....Respondent(s) condonation application on 7.3.2008. The application filed on 7.3.2008 which was registered as Case No.241/74/2008 was again dismissed in default on 31.5.2008. Application for recalling the order dated 31.5.2008 was filed alongwith delay condoantion application by the petitioner on 23.11.2010 which was registered as Misc. Case No.578/29/2010. Application filed by the petitioner on 23.11.2010 was again dismissed in default on 19.3.2014. An application was moved by the petitioners for recalling the order dated 19.3.2014 which was recalled by order dated 8.5.2015 and the application dated 23.11.2010 was restored. After restoration of application dated 23.11.2010, an objection was filed by the opposite parties on 30.1.2016 to the original application of restoration filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2008. By the order impugned, delay condoantion application filed in support of restoration application filed by the petitioners on 7.3.2008 has been rejected. Consequently, the restoration application also stood rejected. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that by order dated 8.5.2015, order dated 19.3.2014 was recalled, thus, the restoration application filed by the petitioner on 23.11.2010 stood restored and there was no occasion for the Court to have decided the earlier application which already stood dismissed in default by order dated 31.5.2008. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that from the perusal of order dated 8.5.2015, Misc. Case No.241/74/2008 was restored and therefore, the same has rightly been decided by the Court below. 6. From perusal of the order dated 8.5.2015, it is apparent that the Court was considering an application for recalling the order dated 19.3.2014 and which was in fact allowed and the order dated 19.3.2014 was set aside though it appears that by inadvertence, wrong case number has been mentioned as there was no order dated 19.3.2014 passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case No.241/74/2008. So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since by order dated 8.5.2015, restoration application dated 23.11.2010 stood revived, there was no occasion for the Court below to have decided the earlier restoration application which already A227 No. 2606 of 2016 2 dismissed in default on that date and that cannot be dismissed again as the same stood dismissed in default by order dated 17.8.2007. 6A. In my view, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has merits. An application which was earlier dismissed cannot be dismissed again. 7. Consequently, the order impugned dated 21.3.2016 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Court below is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner dated 27.11.2010 for recalling the order dated 31.5.2008 be considered first and in case such an application is allowed then may proceed to consider the earlier restoration application which stood dismissed by order dated 31.5.2008. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the applications dated 23.11.2010 and 7.3.2008 on merits. The Court below is directed to decide these applications, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties as well as opportunity to file objection to the respondents, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order provided there is no other legal impediment. 9. Since both the parties are present and agreed, both the parties are directed to appear on 27.10.2025 and respondents may file objections, if any, within a week thereafter. The Court below should consider and decide the application thereafter, in accordance with law, as directed above. October 9, 2025 Rishabh A227 No. 2606 of 2016 3 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad