Disposed¶22

Shrawan Prajapati v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025CRLRD/301/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Court No. 93; Harvir Singh; criminal revision defective; CRLRD 301 of 2024; Shrawan Prajapati v. State of U.P.; condonation of delay; inordinate delay of 5044 days; poor financial condition; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed as withdrawn; Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors.; Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025; SLP(C) No. 10704 of 2019; limitation periods; litigant lethargy; revision consigned to records; September 19, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 5044 days in filing the revision is inordinate and cannot be condoned as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra). ¶17

Shrawan Prajapati Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 301 of 2024

¶2

Shrawan Prajapati .....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raghvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahendra Pratap Singh

¶3

Court No. - 93

¶4

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision, however, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

As per earlier orders dated 30.04.2023 and 08.08.2025, none appeared on behalf of revisionist, hence the application for condonation of delay is taken up as per the material available on record.

¶9

The revisionist herein also filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47965 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The said application was filed in the year 2023. No other ground has been assailed in the present revision for seeking condonation of delay, except poor financial condition of the revisionist.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that prior to filing of this revision, the revisionist preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the ground taken that he was financially

¶11

CRLRD No. 301 of 2024

¶12

¶13

poor is not tenable. If the financial condition of the revisionist was poor, then under what circumstances he managed to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed as withdrawn. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon paragraph nos. 260, 261, 262 and 264 of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019, which reads as under:-

¶14

" 262 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a Stateauthority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

¶15

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

¶16

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law."

¶17

Having regard to the fact that there is inordinate delay of 5044 days in filing the revision. The said delay is inordinate and cannot be condoned as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra) .

¶18