Partly allowed¶12

Madhav Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 May 2025A227/24403/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madhav Prasad v. State of U.P. thru. District Magistrate Gonda; Matters Under Article 227 No. 24403 of 2018; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.; order dated 03.08.2017 quashed; delay condonation application; Misc. Civil Appeal No. 434 of 2012; recall of ex-parte decree; Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act; sufficient cause; remand to appellate authority; petition partly allowed; decided 02.05.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:25575.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.08.2017 quashed; matter remanded to the appellate authority to hear and decide Misc. Appeal No. 434 of 2012 expeditiously and in accordance with law; petition partly allowed in above terms. ¶12

Madhav Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25575

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 24403 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Madhav Prasad

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kant Singh,Ravindra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2017 whereby the delay condonation application was rejected and the consequent miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed.

¶8

2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the suit filed against the petitioner, name of the defendant was wrongly shown which led to passing of an ex-parte decree. The petitioner moved an application seeking recall of the decree which was passed ex-parte , however, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which as numbered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.434 of 2012 alongwith a delay condonation application. The appellate Court dismissed the delay condonation application mainly on the ground that the application seeking recall of the order was filed after a substantial delay.

¶9

3. The said order cannot be justified as it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to have decided the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act after considering the delay for filing the miscellaneous appeal and whether there was sufficient cause or not as the delay in filing the miscellaneous appeal was not substantial.

¶10

4. The impugned order dated 03.08.2017 cannot be sustained and is quashed.

¶11

5. Matter is remanded to the appellate authority to hear and decide Misc. Appeal No.434 of 2012 expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶12

6. Present petition is partly allowed in above terms.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 nishant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhav Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Smt.Rama Devi Vs VI Additional District Judge Faizabad and 4 Ors.

Narendra Kumar Duggal Vs Additional District Judge/ Special Judge E.C. Act Lko.

Rajveer Sharma Vs District Judge Lakhimpur Kheri

Arinjay Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Asad Umar Rahman and 4 Others Vs the Learned Addl. District Judge CT.NO.-11 Lucknow and 2 Ors.

Syed Abbas Haider Rizvi Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.1 Lucknow and Ors.