Dismissed

Sri Prafull Saraswat v. Sri Manish Singh and 18 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020CLRED/48/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected the delay application in a revision under Section 115 CPC challenging a District Judge's order dismissing an election petition application. The Court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained as the applicant had admitted revisability in a previous order and Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not cover post-admission delay.

What did the court decide?

The delay application was rejected and the revision was dismissed as delay was not sufficiently explained.

Sri Prafull Saraswat Vs Sri Manish Singh and 18 Others — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 48 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Sri Prafull Saraswat Opposite Party :- Sri Manish Singh And 18 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Taniya Pandey,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.)

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 12.02.2019. It is reported to be beyond time by 358 days.

¶8

By means of the present revision, the revisionist is challenging the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Hapur in Election Petition No. 02 of 2017 (Sri Manish Singh Vs. Prafull Saraswat and 18 others) whereby the learned court below has rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XII Rule 6 and order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. For the purposes of the delay condonation, it is seen that against the order dated 12.02.2019, the applicant had first filed the petition under Article 227 No. 1273 of 2019, that came to be dismissed by the following order :

¶9

"It is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 readwith Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC.

¶10

He prays for and is granted permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a revision under the appropriate provision.

¶11

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

¶12

Instead of filing any revision at that stage, the applicant first appears to have been filed a recall application in the aforesaid matter on 16.05.2019, that itself came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2020. In the meanwhile, the applicant again approached this Court under Article 227 No. 979 of 2020 (Sri Prafull Saraswat Vs. Manish Singh and others), that came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2020 being second petition for the same relief.

¶13

Thus, the delay has been explained on account of legal advice

¶14

given to the applicant to approach this court to file a recall of the order dated 25.03.2019. Reliance has been placed on Section 23(e) of Municipalities Act, 1916 to submit that order dated 12.02.2019, was not revisable.

¶15

The delay has been vehemently opposed by learned standing counsel. He submits that not only the delay had been caused deliberately but that the applicant has been in the habbit of delaying the proceedings before the learned court below as well, in as much as despite order dated 12.02.2019 rejecting his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order XII Rule 6 and order VI Rule 16 C.P.C., the applicant had filed another application on the same ground which also came to be dismissed by order dated 12.02.2020. Thus, it has been submitted that repeated adjournments have been sought before the learned court below on one pretext or the other to frustrate, the specific direction issued by the court on earlier occasion to conclude the proceeding of election petition expeditiously.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, while the conduct offered by the applicant in the proceedings before the learned court below may be of lesser consequence in the context of the delay that is sought to be condoned, at the same same, the delay of 358 days reported in filing the present revision cannot be dealt with lightly in the context of an election dispute. Again the delay that may have been caused from March 2020 to the date of filing of the present revision, cannot be decisive as during that period, citizens in general and litigants in particular have been under the grave difficulty wherein their moments and activities have remained restricted on account of the situation arising from the spread of pandemic Covid-19. Therefore, the remaining delay from the date of 25.03.2019 to March, 2020 is to be considered.

¶17

Here it may be noted that the order dated 25.03.2019 came to be passed on an admission made by the applicant as recorded in that order that the order dated 12.02.2019 impugned in those proceedings, was revisable. The statement made has to be read as made upon legal advice as the same was made during the course of a legal proceedings before this Court, wherein the applicant was represented through counsel.

¶18

That being the case, the explanation to condone the delay in filing the revision after a long period of one year merely because the applicant may have filed a recall application against the order dated 25.03.2019 that too after two months from the date of the order dated 25.03.2019, does not merit acceptance.

¶19

Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned senior counsel has made a further

¶20

submission based on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The same may also not be accepted in as much as the delay that may have been caused upto 25.03.2019 alone would stand condoned or ignored in view of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. A further delay that is stated to have been caused in view of filing of the application to recall the order dated 25.03.2019, may not be condoned in as much as the order dated 25.03.2019 was passed on the own admission of the applicant that the impugned order was revisable.

¶21

Also once the applicant had committed himself to a particular remedy of filing revision and on that basis the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was terminated, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may not remain available for the further delay caused after the order dated 25.03.2019 had been passed.

¶22

Thus, the delay is found to have been not sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the delay application is rejected. Also, consequently, the revision shall stand dismissed as well.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 SA

¶24

Digitally signed by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh Date: 2020.12.18 10:59:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Prafull Saraswat v. Sri Manish Singh and 18 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prafull Saraswat v. Sri Manish Singh and 18 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tripurari Shukla, Fair Price Shop Dealer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Onkar Nath and 2 Others Vs Additional District Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and 25 Others

Raju and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saurabh Mishra and Another Vs the Settlement Officer Consolidation and 15 Others

Rambujh Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation and 11 Others