Dismissed¶15

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025CRLRD/537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation rejected; criminal revision dismissed as barred by limitation. Allahabad High Court, Madan Pal Singh, J., Criminal Revision Defective No. - 537 of 2024, order dated December 16, 2025 (Application No. 01.2024). Impugned order: ex parte trial-court order dated 07.03.2014. Revisionist's grounds: lack of knowledge and financial hardship; opposite party no.2 alleged deliberate non-appearance after filing written statement and lapse of about ten years. Court found no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that no plausible explanation had been furnished by counsel for the revisionist for the inordinate delay. ¶11

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 537 of 2024

¶2

Rahul Kumar

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Chandra Prakash Pandey, Saroj	Phool Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Narendra Kumar
Court No.- 89

¶5

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶6

Ref: Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 01.2024

¶7

Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA.

¶8

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant revision.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the trial court passed the impugned order dated 07.03.2014 ex parte against the revisionist. It was further submitted that when the revisionist came to know about the impugned order, he could not file the revision within the prescribed period due to lack of knowledge and financial hardship. Learned counsel also submitted that the revisionist did not deliberately delay the filing of the present revision, as he was unaware of the period of limitation.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the revisionist had filed his written statement before the trial court and thereafter deliberately did not appear in order to delay the proceedings, as a result of which the ex parte order was passed by the trial court on 07.03.2014. It was further submitted that after a lapse of about ten years, the present revision has been filed without any sufficient cause.

¶11