Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12133 (ALL)

AMARNATH VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

WRIC/40542/2026 · 2026-10-06

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40542 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2026 whereby restoration application filed by contesting respondent was allowed and order dated 23.01.2025 was recalled by said order. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed a recall application which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2026. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when recall application filed by contesting respondent was heard, father of petitioner expired and petitioner and his brother was not substituted as legal heirs, therefore, order dated 30.01.2026 was passed ex-parte. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has referred objections filed by petitioner's brother in said recall application and that substitution application has already been filed. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, since by way of impugned order, only a recall application was allowed and order dated 23.01.2025 whereby appeal filed by contesting respondent was dismissed as non prosecution was recalled. A fact that petitioner's elder brother has filed objections cannot be disputed since it is on record. 7. In view of above, Court is of the view that in such cases where Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Maurya, Arvind Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Syed Nadeem Ahmad, Tripurari Pal Amarnath Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 13 Others .....Respondent(s) application for restoration is allowed and matter is now put up for final hearing on merit and in such cases, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Otherwise also, delay was of only 1 year in filing a restoration application and no substantive prejudice is caused to petitioner since appeal is still to be heard on merit. 8. Accordingly, writ petition has no force, hence, dismissed. October 7, 2026 N. Sinha WRIC No. 40542 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad