Dismissed

Indra Jeet v. State of U.P. Thru.the Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024/59/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil misc review application, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay filed over eleven and a half years later. The court held that the petitioner's explanation regarding financial crisis and age did not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the review application itself was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the review application was dismissed.

Indra Jeet Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Secy. Higher… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30307-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 59 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Indra Jeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.The Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bali Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

This review application has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 02.05.2012 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.216 of 2012, whereby the special appeal, filed by the appellant, was dismissed.

¶7

Office has reported that the review petition is barred by 3585 days, i.e., above eleven and a half years. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed inter alia indicating that the petitioner is an old man and has no source of income, therefore, due to financial crunch, he could not approach the Court in time and could not file the review application. He is suffering from various diseases, like diabetes, blood pressure etc., and in case, the Court does not intervene in the matter, he will suffer irreparable loss.Reference has been made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra & Ors : (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar & Ors vs V. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr : (2000) 9 SCC 94, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., vs Subrata Bohra : (2010) 14 SCC 419.

¶8

Perusal of the record indicates that services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1994 and he filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the year 2008, which came to be dismissed on 12.03.2012 against which the Special Appeal was filed wherein the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge regarding absence of any logical explanation of 12 years, did not require any interference and consequently dismissed the special appeal vide order dated 02.05.2012.

¶9

The instant review application has been filed inter alia seeking to re-argue the special appeal/ the writ petition. The explanation, as noticed hereinbefore, for a delay of about 12

¶10

years is clearly by way of a formality in filing the application seeking condonation of delay. No explanation worth consideration has been indicated so as to bring the same within the parameters of "sufficient cause". The delay of over eleven and a half years in filing the review application has not been explained appropriately.

¶11

For the delay and laches in filing the review application, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the review application is also dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 P. Sri./Prateek

¶13

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indra Jeet v. State of U.P. Thru.the Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Jeet v. State of U.P. Thru.the Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and 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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Public Works Deptt. Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs M/S Shanti Construction Thru. Its Partner Sh. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal

Suresh Chandra Yadav Vs Honble Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lko. and Others

Prakriti Consultants Services Lucknow Thru. Its M.D. Vs Director Ministry of Environment and Forest I.A. Division and

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional Manager and Ors. Vs Mahant Ram Yadav

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences , Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S S.C. Agarwal Purana Qila , Lko. Thru. Proprietor Mr. S.C. Agarwal