PUSHPA DEVI GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.S. Jain, learned Counsel for petitioner in the first writ petition and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for petitioner in the second writ petition, and Sri R.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, Prakash Narain Nigam, the landlord in both the writ petitions.

(2.) Thereafter, appeal was again dismissed in default by District Judge, Lucknow on 16.10.2012 and in the said judgment reference was made to the High Court's order dated 18.1.2012 also. Thereafter, restoration application was filed, which was dismissed in default. Thereafter, application for recall of the said order was filed, which was dismissed on 30.3.2013, copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Through the second writ petition, the above orders including the last order dated 30.3.2013 have been challenged.

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioner has repeatedly argued that petitioner deserves one opportunity of hearing. The argument is that appeal was transferred to another Court but information was not given. In the order it is mentioned that information was sought to be given to the learned Counsel of the appellant but he was not available. Now execution proceedings have been started.