This single-judge order dismissed a time-barred review application due to insufficient grounds for condoning an 893-day delay. The court further held the application failed to point out errors apparent on the face of the record, precluding any merit-based adjudication.
Condonation of delay application dismissed; Review application dismissed.
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. - 6
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 148 of 2024
Applicant :- Badri And Others Opposite Party :- Jata Shankar And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad,Rakesh Kumar,Surendra Singh
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
would be served even by issuing the notice to the respondents to call their objection just for a formality. Thus, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.01 of 2024) is dismissed . Consequently, the review application is dismissed .
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the explanation for condonation of delay of 893 days in filing a review application is sufficient.
Whether a review application raising complaints against both the trial and appellate court constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Badri And Others
Jata Shankar And Another
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
