Dismissed

Dileep Kumar Srivas v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024CMRAD/2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a civil misc review application filed by Dileep Kumar Srivas against an earlier order dismissing his writ petition. The application was barred by limitation, failing condonation grounds, and lacked merit under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the review petition are rejected.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1488-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 2 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Srivas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Waris Farooqui

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Warif Farooqui, learned Counsel for the applicant/review petitioner.

¶7

Office has reported that the instant review petition has been filed beyond 131 days.

¶8

The instant review petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 5258 of 2023, Dileep Kumar Srivas v. State of U.P. and others , whereby the writ petition filed by the review petitioner was dismissed.

¶9

A perusal of record shows that in the writ proceedings, Shri Abhishek Khare had appeared, whereas the instant review petition has been filed by Mr. Mohd. Waris Farooqui. More over, learned Counsel for the applicant is unable to explain the delay in approaching the Court and he fails to point any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2023.

¶10

As far as the Review Petitions are concerned, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record.

¶11

In Meera Bhanja (Smt) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) [(1995)1SCC 170] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. The Hon. Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi Vs Sumitra Devi 1997(8)SCC 715 observed that under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is a rider on the power of the Court, which passed the order. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-hard and corrected. On the aforesaid acid test it is settled position that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"..

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the review petition is also rejected.

¶13

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 5.1.2024 lakshman

¶14

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Kumar Srivas v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar Srivas v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. 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

Virendra Singh Vs State Public Service Tribunal U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Jagdei Vs District Magistrate Distt. Unnao and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry Comm. Post and Telecomm.(Now Finance and Comm.)New Delhi and Ors.

Dr. Vikas Agarwal Vs Dr. Able Lawrence and Ors.

Sudhir Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mining Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Dr. Devendra Gupta and Anr. Vs Dr. Narayan Prasad and Ors.