Dismissed

Surendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2023CRLRD/553/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision and an accompanying C.M. application seeking condonation of delay, the Allahabad High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay due to insufficient cause and dismissed the revision petition filed out of time.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; Revision petition dismissed; Interim order vacated.

Surendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50397

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 553 of 2017

¶4

Revisionist :- Surendra Kumar Yadav And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vidya Bhushan Pandey,Vimal Kishor Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anil Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

In Re C.M. Application No. 55834 of 2017-Condonation of Delay.

¶7

Learned counsel for revisionists, learned counsel for the State and opposite party no. 2 are present.

¶8

Present revision has been filed against the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the A.V.J.M-III Faizabad my means of which recovery warrrant has been issued against the revisionist and also against the order dated 3.06.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Faizabad by means of which a direction was issued to the revisionists to pay Rs.2000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 withing 10 days in every month, and also against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by the A.C.J.M.-IIIrd Faizabad by means of which a direction was issued to the revisionist to pay Rs.1000/- per months to the respondent no.2 in each and every month along with the application for condonation of delay.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 04.01.2016 the deponent could not file the revision within time frame due to lack of money being jobless and this fact has been mentioned in the

¶10

affidavit dated 20.05.2017.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and state have opposed the submission aforesaid.

¶12

No sufficient cause has been shown in the application for codonation of delay, hence the application for condonation of delay is rejected and also the present revision is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Interim order if any, stands vacated.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.7.2023 Mayank

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Yakoob Khan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nand Kishore Thru. Father Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gautam Nishad Thru. His Mother Smt. Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Harnam @ Harinam Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Bhullar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.