Disposed¶19

Yatendra Singh @ Pappu and 6 Others v. Smt. Sarojani Singh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2025FAFO/265/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; re-institution of first appeal; Order 41 Rule 19 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(T) CPC; Section 5 Limitation Act; dismissal for non-prosecution; COVID-19; restoration application rejected for delay; injunction suit Civil Suit No.148 of 2006; Additional District Judge Unnao; Misc. Case No.87/2003; notice issued; interim order; FAFO 265 of 2025; Prashant Kumar J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the respondents, returnable at an early date; steps to be taken within a week; four weeks granted to the respondent to file objection and two weeks thereafter to the appellants to file rejoinder affidavit; matter listed on 30.01.2026. ¶19

Yatendra Singh @ Pappu and 6 Others vs Smt. Sarojani Singh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 265 of 2025

¶3

Yatendra Singh @ Pappu And 6 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Sarojani Singh And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Dinesh Sharma	Kumar	Yadav,	Siddharth
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶9

Court No. - 19

¶10

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶12

The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (T) of CPC has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, District- Unnao in Misc. Case No.87/2003; Yatendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sarojini Singh and Ors. filed under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC for re-institution of first appeal along with Application U/S 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in which application was rejected by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 on the grounds of conjecture and surmises.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had filed a suit for injunction being Civil Suit No.148 of 2006 and the same was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2014 against which, the appellants had filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, because of the COVID-19, the appellants could not appear and the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. When this fact came into the notice of the appellants, restoration application was preferred but the same was also rejected on the ground of delay, against which, the present appeal has been filed.

¶14