In this criminal revision, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for want of prosecution. The petitioner failed to appear on previous dates or press for time, indicating a lack of intent.
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.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 77 of 2017
Revisionist :- Urmila Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Gunjan Sharma,Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
None for the applicant / revisionist for hearing on application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Learned A. G. A. is present.
This defective revision is pending since the year, 2017 but noone is appearing to press the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. On previous dates also, no-one has appeared on behalf of applicant / revisionist.
It appears that the revisionist / applicant does not want to purse the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, hence this application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed for want of prosecution .
Order Date :- 26.10.2023 HR
Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow time for filing a criminal revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for want of appearance by the petitioner.
Whether to dismiss the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to lack of prosecution.
Urmila Tiwari
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
Hemant Ranjan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
