MOHD. FAROOQ Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE release application of Respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed ex -parte by an order dated 11 -5 -1990. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex -parte order supported with an affidavit, in which it was alleged that by inadvertence the counsel for the petitioner noted the date fixed as 25 -5 -1990 instead of 25 -4 -1990 and he was informed accordingly. Under bona fide belief when he came to the court on 25 -5 -1990 the petitioner was informed by his counsel that the case has already been decided against him on 11 -5 -1990 ex parte. An application for restoration and setting aside ex -parte order was filed on 25 -5 -1990. The prescribed authority rejected the application by order dated 17 -12 -1990. It was held that on 18 -4 -1990, 25th April, 1990 was fixed for hearing and evidence of the parties. The petitioner was deliberately trying to delay the proceeding as he did not file any objection since 3 -12 -1988 upto 25th April 1990 inspite of several opportunities being given to him. Learned Prescribed authority was of the view that some interpolation was made in the order sheet as instead of 25 -4 -1990 it was changed to 25 -5 -1990. According to. him all this indicates the delaying tactics and the negligence on the part of the petitioner and, as such, the cause shown was not sufficient to set aside ex -parte order. The petitioner has also not come with clean hands and the application is liable to be rejected. This order was challenged in appeal under Section 22 of the Act but on the legal advise the appeal was withdrawn.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.