Dismissed

Virsh Bhan Sharma v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2021SPLAD/49/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal was dismissed as defective due to an uncondonable delay of 700 days. The court found reasons given for delay, including illness and lockdown, insufficient and untimely to justify the ex parte dismissal of the underlying writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal No.49 of 2021 and application for condonation of delay dismissed as defective.

Virsh Bhan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 49 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Virsh Bhan Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Javed Husain Khan,Gulrez Khan,Sr. Advocate Sri W.H. Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 9.1.2019 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶6

An application for condonation of delay has been filed. Delay in filing this appeal is of more than 700 days i.e. about two years.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant showed reference to para-2 of delay condonation application to justify the delay. Para-2 of the affidavit shows that appellant fell ill in March 2019 as he was suffering from Pneumonia and before he could fully recover, suffered fracture in the leg, which took about two or three months in recovery. To support the affidavit, medical certificate dated 07.11.2019 has been submitted. No document to show sufferance of the appellant from Pneumonia and treatment thereupon has been enclosed.The medical certificate is of November 2019, where as judgment is dated 09.01.2019.

¶8

In view of the above, the delay of 700 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. It is when period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal. It expired in the month of February 2019 itself as no application to obtain certified copy was filed. The lock down was impposed on 23rd March 2020 thus there was no reason to not submit an application to obtain certified copy of the order. Thus the exemption from supplying

¶9

the certified copy cannot be granted. It has been permitted after imposition of lock down due to Covid-19.

¶10

The judgment in this case is almost one year two months prior to the lock down. Thus even the exemption from serving the certified copy cannot be granted thus appeal remains defective. For all the reasons given above, we find no ground to condone the delay of 700 days in filing the appeal.

¶11

The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with application for condonation of delay.

¶12

Date :- 20.1.2021 Ashish Pd.

Virsh Bhan Sharma v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virsh Bhan Sharma v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arti Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U P and Another Vs the State Public Service Tribunal and Another

Ashish Singh and 39 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kripa Shankar Pandey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others