The said order was challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Allahabad and by its judgment and order dated 9th of January, 1980, the matter was remitted back to the First Additional District Judge, Nainital to decide it afresh.
The said writ petition was admitted by the High Court of Allahabad.
Gupta did number appear at the time the said application for restoration was listed for hearing i.e. on 26th of March, 2008, the said application for restoration was also rejected by a learned Judge of the High Court for number prosecution.
An application for substitution of the deceased Smt.
On 25th of May, 1982, the appellants filed a Civil Misc.
Devki Devi in the pending writ petition.
After remand, the First Additional District Judge, Nainital by his order dated 5th of March, 1982, again upheld the order of declaring vacancy and allotment in favour of the said Manager.
Since Sh.
6551 of 2008 and MCC No.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court rejecting the writ application for number prosecution and subsequent order rejecting the application for restoration, the appellants have filed two Special Leave Petitions, which on grant of leave, were heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the appellants only.
Single No.
The facts of the case are as follows The deceased mother of the appellants Smt.
The said Manager got an ex parte order for declaring vacancy under Section 16 1 of U.P.Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 Act No.13 of 1972 and thereafter an ex parte order for allotment of shop in question in his favour.
The case that was made out by the appellants for restoration of the writ petition was that the learned companynsel for the appellants Sh.
For restoration of the writ petition dismissed for number prosecution, an application was filed by the appellants through their learned companynsel Shri Bindesh Kumar Gupta.
Single No.7361 of 2001 for number prosecution and rejected the application for restoration of the writ petition on companydonation of delay in filing the same.
Subsequently, on the creation of State of Uttarakhand, the said writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and was re numbered as W.P. S No.7361 of 2001.
Gupta was appointed as the Additional Advocate General of the State, he companyld number appear when the writ petition was taken up for hearing.
Writ Petition No.
However, by an order dated 28th of December, 2007, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for number prosecution.
By a separate order of the same date, another application filed by the appellants for the substitution of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Pooranlal Shah Manager was also allowed by the High Court.
Devki Devi was dispossessed from her shop on account of deceptive acts of her Manager, namely, Pooranlal Shah who was engaged by her to run the business of companyfectionery Halwai after the death of her father.
The appellants were thus substituted in place of the deceased Smt.
5997 A /1982 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the aforesaid order dated 5th of March, 1982 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Nainital.
1153 of 2008 respectively of the High Court of Uttarakhand, whereby the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition Misc.
The High Court by the order dated 3rd of October, 2008 dismissed the second application for restoration on the ground of delay and latches without passing a speaking and reasoned order.
7361 of 2001 and the order dated 3rd of October, 2008 passed in CLMA No.
Sometime in the month of September, 2008, a second application for restoration of the writ petition was filed by the appellants saying that since Sh.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are filed against the order dated 28th of December, 2007 passed in Writ Petition Misc.
Devika Devi was filed which was allowed by an order dated 17th of December, 2007.
