Rakesh Kumar Seth Vs Additional District and Sessions JUDGE,06, Lucknow and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46219

Court No. - 6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2308 of 2024

Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Seth Respondent :- Additional District And Sessions Judge,06, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Shivesh Nath Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Shesh Ram Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shivesh Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, whereby the delay of more than 10 years has been condoned while preferring an appeal.

¶8

The facts in brief are that given below:

¶9

(i) That on 07.04.2004 a Petition against the Petitioner hereinunder Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [U.P. Act 13 of 1972] was preferred by the Opposite Party No.2 bearing P.A.Case No.22 of 2004 titled Manohar Lal versus Rakesh Kumar Seth before the Learned Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge), Lucknow claiming that hewas the owner and landlord of House No.312/114 Ka, Refugee Colony, Lajpat Nagar, Police Station-Chowk, Lucknow& sought immediate possession of the said premises;

¶10

(ii) That on 23.09.2008 a compromise deed was entered into between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2. The terms and conditions of the said compromise deed dated 23.09.2008 were read out to the opposite party no.2, and only after having understood the terms and consequences of the terms stated therein that the opposite party no.2 on his own volition affixed his signature thereby accepting the terms laid in the compromise deed;

¶11

(iii) That in the year 2010 the Opposite Party No.2 sought to recover arrears in rent from the Petitioner herein in pursuance of which S.C.C. Case No.0900093/2010 was filed in relation to

¶12

the same property which was the subject matter of P.A. Case No.22 of 2004 titled Manohar Lal versus Rakesh Kumar Seth before the Learned Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge), Lucknow and the compromise decree dated 23.09.2008;

¶13

(iv) That the said S.C.C. Case No.0900093/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2016 by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-2, Lucknow after due consideration of all facts, circumstances and evidence produced by both disputing parties. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 26.08.2016, the Learned Court specifically observed that the Opposite Party had failed to establish a landlord/tenant relation nor was any evidence adduced in pursuance of the same;

¶14

(v) That on 17.11.2016 the Opposite Party No.2 filed an application B-11 for correction of the order dated 23.09.2008 Additionally, on 09.04.2019 the Opposite Party No.2 again filed an application to not press the said application and sought permission to file a fresh application. The Learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2019 allowed the B-11 application with an observation that the Opposite Party No.2 would not be at liberty to dispute the same facts again in the future against the Petitioner;

¶15

(vi) That on 04.10.2019, the Opposite Party No.2 filed an Appeal against compromise decree dated 23.09.2008 along with Application under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 4050 days in Miscellaneous Case No. 485 of 2019, Manohar Lal versus Rakesh Kumar Seth before the Learned Court below.

¶16

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that, the delay condonation application has been allowed by means of the impugned order, he draws the attention of this Court towards the delay condonation application and the affidavit in support thereof, which does not disclose any sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal for a term of more than 10 years. It is further argued that even otherwise against a compromise decree, an appeal would not lie.

¶17

Perusal of the delay condonation application, which is on record, it is clear that the respondent was aware of the institution of proceedings, the decree dated 23.09.2008 as well as an application moved for amendment of the said decree vide application dated 17.11.2016. The delay condonation application was filed in the year 2019, there is no explanation as to why, the appeal was not preferred for a term of ten years. The trial court has allowed the delay condonation application without there being any discussion on the huge quantum of

¶18

delay. The delay has been condoned as cost of Rs. 30,000/-.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent, justifying the order by arguing that the order of compromise was wrongly obtained, he further argues that an application was filed for correction of the compromise order and, thus, there was trite delay in preferring the appeal, which has rightly been condoned by the trial court.

¶20

Considering the impugned order, there is no discussion towards the satisfaction that there were sufficient cause for the appellant not to prefer the appeal within the limitation prescribed, in the absence of there being any sufficient cause, the trial court has committed illegality in condoning the delay of 10 years and 352 days and, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained and is set-aside/quashed.

¶21

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Praveen

¶23

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

Rakesh Kumar Seth v. Additional District and Sessions JUDGE,06, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Seth v. Additional District and Sessions JUDGE,06, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kamarjhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Gram Vikas Lko. and 6 Others

G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Arun Kumar Vs Mayank Jain

Uma Shanker Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar Seth vs Additional District and Sessions JUDGE,06, Lucknow and Another

Lal Mohan Pathak and 5 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others