# Harish Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 1239
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal Defective No. 1188 of 1993
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harish-chandra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48758
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

S,C., Sri Chandrashekhar

U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad -
Defective Appeal of the year 1993-matter
was dismissed for not making good the
deficit of court fees-necessary party not
made until 2022-enhancement claimed at a
rate of Rs. 100/-Rs. 120/- per square yard
be paid to the Appellant-not entitled for
interest from 1995 till restoration in the
year 2022.

Appeal disposed of. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Harish Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1239

10. Above injuries caused by acid
burn. Duration fresh informed police. From
the medical report, it appears that injured
had sustained burn acid injury.

11. The provisions relating to charge
are intended to provide that the charge shall
give the accused full notice of offence
charged against him. The purpose of a
charge is to tell the accused person as
precisely and concisely as possible of the
matter with which he is charged and must
convey to him with sufficient clearness and
certainty, what the prosecution intended to
prove against him. At the time of framing
of charge, the court is not required to
screen evidence or to apply the standard
whether the prosecution will be able to
prove the case against the accused at the
trial. The Court shall consider only the
material
placed
before
it
by
the
Investigating Agency. Court has to see only
prima facie case against the accused.
Charge can be framed even on the basis of
strong suspicion founded on material
before the Court.

12. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court is of the view that trial court has
passed a legal order, there is not manifest
error or material irregularity in the
impugned order. There is prima facie
evidence material against the revisionist to
frame charge against the revisionist under
Section 326A IPC also and in such
circumstances applicant is not liable to be
discharged.

13. Thus, this criminal revision has no
force and is dismissed, accordingly.

14. Learned Trial Court is directed to
frame charge against the revisionist and
make endeavor to conclude the trial
expeditiously,
if
there
is
no
legal
impediment.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1239
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 1188 of 1993

Harish Chandra & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shyam Singh Sengar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S,C., Sri Chandrashekhar

U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad -
Defective Appeal of the year 1993-matter
was dismissed for not making good the
deficit of court fees-necessary party not
made until 2022-enhancement claimed at a
rate of Rs. 100/-Rs. 120/- per square yard
be paid to the Appellant-not entitled for
interest from 1995 till restoration in the
year 2022.

Appeal disposed of. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Chandra Vs U.O.I (2020) 15SCC

2. Nimna Dudhana Project Vs St. of Mah. & ors.,
AIR 2020 SC 717
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J. )
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Shyam Singh
Sengar,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant, Sri Chandrashekhar, learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
and
learned Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. On very short point this appeal
can be disposed of. We are thankful to
Sri Chandrashekhar for pointing out
three aspects:

(i)
that
the
matter
was
dismissed for not making good the
deficit of court fees;

(ii) this is a defective appeal
of the year 1993;

(iii) while filing the appeal
there was no delay. The appeal came
to be dismissed on 22.11.1995 and a
restoration application came to be
filed
immediately
i.e
in
1995,
unfortunately the appellant and his
advocate did not take any steps to
make good the deficit court fees and
all other defects which was there. This
Court
again
in
the
year
2000
dismissed the same for the second
time which went in the disposal list.

3. Learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance on the
judgement of Division Bench of this
High Court in F.A. No. 56 of 2005, in
F.A.No. 1062 of 1995 and judgement
of Single Judge in F.A. No. 395 of
2018. Similarly, learned counsel for
the respondent has placed reliance on
the judgement of Single Judge in F.A
No. 993 of 2021 and Division Bench
of this High Court in F.A.No. 184 of
2019.

4. In the year 2018 Division
Bench of this High Court more
particularly in F.A. No. 56 of 2005 on
21.07.2015
passed
some
orders
despite that appellant did not wake up
from his slumber. The other matters
were also allowed on 16.11.2016
relying on the decision of the Division
Bench in F.A No. 56 of 2005 and F.A.
No. 1062 of 1995 came to be allowed.
It also did not make up the appellant
herein, thereafter, one of us sitting as
Single Judge decided the list where on
30.05.2018
and
Hukum
Singh
&
Others and also U.P. Avas Evam
Vikash Parishad took the matters to
the Apex Court.

5. On 04.01.2021, the learned
Single Judge of this Court in F.A.D.
No. 87 of 2021 allowed connected
appeals which is pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondents
which
has
attained
finality
on
25.04.2022.

6. As far as this appeal is
concerned three issues emerged:-

(1) From the year 1993 till
date U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad
was not made party. On the direction
of this Court in the year 2022 they
were made party. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the U.P. Avas
Evam Vikash Parishad that the appeal
cannot be allowed as even in the
appeal the appellant has claimed
enhancement at a rate of Rs. 100/-. It
is further submitted that the deficit
court fees are paid on this valuation
and
therefore
the
enhancement
requires to be restricted to Rs. 100/-
square yard;
7 All. Ompal Singh Vs. Santram Gupta
1241

(2) Should the U.P. Avas Evam
Vikash Parishad be saddled with interest.
The appeal was dismissed for default way
back in the year 1995, it was again
dismissed for default even in the year
2020 and 2021, court fees were not paid.
The other matters came to be decided in
the year 2016 and 2018 respectively, that
also did not wake the slumber of the
appellant herein. Though the delay is
condoned by this Court because of the
decision of the Apex Court that parity
should be maintained but the decision in
Ram Chandra Vs. U.O.I (2020) 15SCC
would apply, but the respondents cannot
be saddled with costs/interest for the said
period. The said view is reiterated by the
Apex Court in case of Nimna Dudhana
Project Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
AIR 2020 SC 717. The appellant has been
lacks
in
prosecuting
the
case
and
therefore and in the light of these
judgements the interest for the said
period cannot be granted, however, on the
enhanced amount from the date of
enhancement is made till the award
appellant would be entitled on the
enhanced amount and from the date the
delay is restored it will carry interest. It is
stated by the Sri Chandrashkehar, learned
counsel for the respondents that the
matter is concluded by the Apex Court
and hence though formally objects as Rs.
100/- per square yard is claimed.

7. We hold in light of the facts that
Rs. 120/- per square yard be paid to the
appellant, however, for the period from
1995 till the restoration is filed in the year
2022, they shall not be entitled for the
interest as held by the Apex Court and as
submitted by Sri Chandrashekhar, learned
counsel for the respondents.

8. The defective appeal is disposed of.

9. The appellant to make good the
deficit court fees and if they do not make
good the requisite court fees, the learned
trial Judge of the court below where the
money is to be deposited would deduct the
said amount of Rs. 20/- per square yard.
The deficit court fees would be recovered
by
the
amount
deposited
by
the
respondents. The respondents to deposit the
difference amount within 12 weeks from
today with the accrued interest from the
date of the award till the award and from
the date of filing of restoration i.e
27.04.2022 till the amount is deposited.

10.

We
are
thankful
to
Sri
Chandrashekhar who has assisted us on the
very first date of hearing though his name
was not shown in the cause list.

11. The counsel for the State adopted
the submission of Sri Chandrashekhar.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1241
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Second Appeal No. 1190 of 2017

Ompal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Santram Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Preetpal Singh Rathore

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.L. Varma, Sri Chandra Bhushan Verma

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 100 - Suit for specific
Performance-Appellant/defendant
entered
agreement for sale of his share of undivided