Allowed

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the revisional authority's rejection of his recall application due to alleged delay. Court relied on Supreme Court's Suo Motu order extending limitation for cases filed between March 2020 and February 2022. Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.11.2023 set aside; matter remitted to respondent for fresh order on recall application within four weeks.

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2118

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 129 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepti Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the order of the Collector passed under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899) the petitioner had preferred a revision under the provisions of the Act, 1899 which revision was dismissed for default on 10.02.2021. Recall application was filed by the petitioner which was not decided which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 19127 (MB) of 2021 in re: Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and others which was decided vide the order dated 02.09.2021, a copy of which is annexure 15 to the petition, with a direction that the appellate authority should consider and dispose of the application for recall of order dated 10.02.2021 and for restoration of appeal within one week.

¶7

It is contended that subsequent thereto the revisional authority vide the order impugned dated 08.11.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, has rejected the application for recall on the ground that the said application has been filed with substantial delay without indicating the reasons for delay.

¶8

Placing reliance on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation , Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s) 3 of 2020, it is contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court has itself directed that cases which are filed during the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 the delay should be condoned.

¶9

It is contended that the revisional authority has failed to consider the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and has rejected the application for recall solely on the ground of no explanation of delay which runs contrary to aforesaid order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid as well as the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) wherein the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 would stand

¶11

excluded and the order passed by the authority dated 08.11.2023 not indicating anything to the same, with the consent learned counsels appearing for the parties, the writ petition is allowed . The order impugned dated 08.11.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is set aside.

¶12

The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order on the application for recall filed by the petitioner after considering the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) which order would be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Udai Pratap Singh Vs Commissioner Faizabad and Another

Uttam Kumar Pal Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and Another

Bhulaei Vs Collector and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Fakire Vs District Magistrate/Collector, Lko. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another