DINENDRA KUMAR Vs. NAVRATAN MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This restoration application has been filed for restoration of the appeal, that had been dismissed in terms of the peremptory order, passed on 27.10.2005.

(2.) All that is alleged in the restoration application is, that the matter was listed before the Court on 22.2.2005, and six weeks' time was granted to remove the defects. It is then alleged, that counsel for the appellant noted the defect i.e. List of documents was not filed, and the matter was again listed in the Court on 27.10.2005, and four weeks' time was granted, making the order peremptory.

(3.) It is then alleged, that since counsel for the appellant had earlier noticed only one defect, i.e. list of documents not filed, as such, list of documents was filed, but initial charges were not deposited. As such the appeal has been dismissed. Then, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, reported in (2006) 1 SCC-75, has been referred to contend, that non-compliance of any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal, or application, or petition for relief, should not entail automatic dismissal, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates.