The Full Bench dismissed the special appeal as not maintainable because it challenged an order passed by the Revisional Authority, which falls outside the scope of Article 226, prohibiting special appeals. Limitation was not granted.
Special Appeal No. 335 of 2020 was dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 335 of 2020
Appellant :- Chandrapal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ- C No. 30845 of 2018. The appeal is barred by limitation from 586 days. An application is preferred to have condonation of the same. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner no. 2 with the assertion that the writ petition came to be disposed of in his absence, therefore, he was not having any knowledge about dismissal of the writ petition.
Be that as it may at the threshold it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that even otherwise the appeal is not maintainable in light of the provisions of Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
The provision aforesaid reads as under:-
"[5. Special appeal :- An appeal shall lie to the Court froma judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise ofappellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and notbeing an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction 66[or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.]"
A Full Bench of this Court in as much as held that the Special Appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1952 is not maintainable if writ petition was challenging the order passed by Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. In the case in hand the appellant approached this Court to question the correctness of the order passed by the Revisional Authority.
In light of whatever stated above the appeal is not maintainable, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2020 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a special appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is maintainable to challenge an order passed by the Revisional Authority in a writ petition.
Whether the appeal is barred by limitation due to a delay of 586 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
certain unspecified Full Bench of this CourtReferred¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandrapal And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Govind Mathur
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
