Dismissed

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. Ayush Kumar and 6 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/2457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the condonation of a 24-day delay in filing a revision. The Court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained and found no infirmity in the lower court's order, declining interference to maintain focus on merits rather than technicalities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as bereft of merits; no interference with the order allowing condonation of delay.

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava Vs Ayush Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2457 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- Ayush Kumar And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shanker Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prem Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶6

By means of present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , he has challenged the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 67 of 2022 by the Additional District Judge, E.C. Act, Faizabad.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had moved an application before prescribed authority for release of House No. 8/6/41 situated at Mohalla Fatehganj College Road, Faizabad under Section 16(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act No. 13, 1972 before the Rent Control Authority.

¶8

Objections were filed by the occupants / tenants of the disputed house and the application preferred by the petitioners were allowed by means of order dated 28.02.2022 and the disputed house was declared to be vacated.

¶9

The petitioner had also moved an application for release of the said property from the tenancy of the respondents which application was also allowed on 29.03.2022. The respondent had filed a revision before the District Judge with a delay of 24 days. The matter was transferred and heard by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, E.C. Act, Ayodhya.

¶10

The controversy in the present case is with regard to order dated 02.04.2022 wherein the revisional court had allowed the application for condonation of delay and condoned the delay in filing of the said revision and against the order dated 02.04.2024, present writ petition has been filed.

¶11

The said application for condonation of delay was filed on 08.04.2022 stating that the delay has been occasioned on the ground of the fact that the revisionist was suffering from high fever and also from economic constraints and consequently prayed for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the said revision.

¶12

The petitioner had filed his objections against the application for condonation of delay and stated that against the release order dated 29.02.2022, a revision has been filed a day prior i.e. on 07.04.2022 and the ground taken by the revisionist that he was not well is false and consequently prayed for rejection of the revision.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently urged that respondents had not come with clean hands before the revisional authority and the very fact a day prior he had filed another revision indicates that the ground of ill health was false and consequently the application for condonation of delay ought to have been rejected.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the record.

¶15

The dispute in the present case is only with regard to delay of 24 days in filing of the revision before the District Judge, Ayodhya. The ground raised by the respondents in support of their application for condonation of delay was that he was suffering from high fever and also due to the economic constraints. The trial court duly considered the application of the respondent and also took support of the various decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been laid down that the aspect of delay has to be liberally considered and the efforts of the court should be to see that the matter is decided on merits rather than dismissed on the ground of technicality to non-suit any person and reject his application on the ground of limitation.

¶16

In order to test the version of the petitioner, a pointed query has been made to learned counsel for petitioner as to whether the petitioner had seen the respondent a day prior when he filed another revision. He fairly submits that petitioner has not seen the respondent in person and further stated that he was not aware of his health conditions and in fact cannot deny the assertions made by the respondent in his application for condonation of delay.

¶17

From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the ground on which the application for condonation of delay has been made could not be rebutted by the petitioner either before the trial court or before this Court and with regard to the delay of 24 days in filing of the revision. The revisional court has fully appreciated the grounds raised by the respondents and also considered the relevant law in this regard and condoned the said delay.This Court is of the considered view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the respondent.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.04.2022 and there is no ground for interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Ravi/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. Ayush Kumar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. Ayush Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Moti Lal vs Raj Kumari

Asharfi Vs A.D.C and Others

Ganga Prasad Objection Filed Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Ayodhaya Vs D.D.C and Others

Hamid Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Bhanwareshwar Verma Vs Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Mahesh Malunjkar