Disposed¶21

Akhilesh Kumar v. Satya Narayan

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2025A227/5954/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; setting aside ex-parte decree dated 20.08.2013; Civil Misc. Case No.1300004 of 2024; Civil Judge Senior Division; impugned order dated 17.02.2025; interim stay of impugned order and further proceedings; notice to opposite party; written statement filed 2008 then abstention; Akhilesh Kumar v. Satya Narayan; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; decided October 9, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition taken up for detailed consideration with notice ordered to the opposite party (steps within one week, listing after service); interim stay granted of the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 and of the entire further proceedings in pursuance thereof. ¶21

Akhilesh Kumar vs Satya Narayan — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant-opposite party made out a sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing his application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.08.2013, given his alleged prior knowledge of the suit proceedings.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party returnable at an early date; steps for issuance of notice to be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner within one week; matter to be listed after service of notice.

¶18

Key takeaways

Meanwhile (pending detailed consideration and service of notice), the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 and the entire further proceedings in pursuance thereof were stayed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow), Court No. 17 — Matters Under Article 227 No. - 5954 of 2025 — Akhilesh Kumar v. Satya Narayan — decided October 9, 2025 by Subhash Vidyarthi, J. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division in Civil Misc. Case No.1300004 of 2024, whereby the defendant-opposite party's application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 20.08.2013 was allowed. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the defendant had full knowledge of the suit (written statement filed in 2008, thereafter abstention), gave no proper explanation for the delay, and that delay cannot be condoned where sufficient cause fails. Finding the matter to require detailed consideration, the Court ordered notice to the opposite party returnable at an early date (steps within one week; list after service of notice) and, meanwhile, stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 and the entire further proceedings in pursuance thereof.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5954 of 2025

Akhilesh Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Satya Narayan

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vishnu Kumar Srivastava, Siddharth Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 17

¶10

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Siddharth Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.02.2025, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division in Civil Misc. Case No.1300004 of 2024, whereby an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the defendant -opposite party for condonation of delay in filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 20.08.2013 has been allowed.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party-defendant had full knowledge of the proceedings of the suit. He had filed written statement in the year 2008 and thereafter he abstained from appearing before the learned trial court. The defendant-opposite party has failed to give any proper explanation for the delay and he merely created an excuse for condonation of delay.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that although the courts have to adopt lenient view while considering application for condonation of delay, where the parties fail to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the delay cannot be condoned.

¶15

A227 No. 5954 of 2025

¶16

¶17

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶18

Issue notice to the opposite party returnable at an early date.

¶19

Steps for issuance of notice shall be taken by learned counsel for the petitioner within one week from today.

¶20

List after service of notice.

¶21

Meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 and the entire further proceedings in pursuance thereof shall remain stayed.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

October 9, 2025

¶24

Ram.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Kumar v. Satya Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar v. Satya Narayan

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

Executive Engineer/Engineer Res Division,Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana,Red,Unnao vs Commercial Court- 1, Lucknow and 4 Others

Ram Niwas Maurya vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. Thru. Its President and 2 Others

M/S Ram Traders Thru.Proprietor Ram Shankar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Tax and Registration ) Lko. and 2 Others

Mansha Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Anagh Shukla vs Smt. Ruchika Jaiswal and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Estate Officer, Deptt. of Estate, Lko. vs M/S Burlington Hotel, Lko. Thru. Partner Murtaza Husain and Another