Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs Devnarayan and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs Devnarayan and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without interference with the impugned orders; trial court directed to decide Original Suit No.1588 of 1992 expeditiously, preferably within one year from production of a certified copy of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dated 24.12.2021 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar condoning delay and restoring Original Suit No.1588 of 1992, and with the order dated 02.01.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar dismissing the revision against it. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Court while allowing the application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. and condoning the delay, as the reasons assigned for condoning delay are satisfactory.

Ratio / Principle

While considering an application for condonation of delay, the satisfaction of the Court concerned is paramount.

Key takeaways

The consequential order passed in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2022 is also justified; this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders dated 24.12.2021 and 02.01.2025.ratio¶5
The learned trial Court is directed to make all possible efforts to decide Original Suit No.1588 of 1992 (Devnarayan and others vs. Rajendra Prasad and others) expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition challenging (i) the order dated 24.12.2021 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 16 of 2010 condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and restoring Original Suit No.1588 of 1992 (Devnarayan and others vs. Rajendra Prasad and others) under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., and (ii) the order dated 02.01.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2022 dismissing the revision against it. Holding that the satisfaction of the court concerned is paramount in condonation matters and finding no infirmity or illegality in either order, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing the trial court to decide the 1992 suit expeditiously, preferably within one year of production of a certified copy of the order.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15 of 2026

Rajendra Prasad Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
Devnarayan And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Girish Kumar Pandey, Chandra Chood Pandey :

Court No. - 25

HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Girish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2022, as well as the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkar Nagar, in Civil Misc. Case No. 16 of 2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Original Suit No.1588 of 1992, Devnarayan and others vs. Rajendra Prasad and others , was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.03.2010. In the said suit, written statements were filed and issues were framed but no evidence could be taken. An application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. for restoration was filed by the plaintiff along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1953, on 14.05.2010. The learned trial Court, after considering the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, condoned the delay and restored the suit vide order dated 24.12.2021. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2025.

4. A bare perusal of the order dated 24.12.2021 reveals that the learned trial Court, being satisfied with the sufficient cause shown in the application for condonation of delay, has condoned the delay. It is trite law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the satisfaction of the Court concerned is paramount.

A227 No. 15 of 2026

2

5. After going through the restoration application along with the application for condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the learned trial Court while allowing the application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. and condoning the delay as the reasons assigned for condoning delay are satisfactory. The consequential order passed in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2022 is also justified. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders dated 24.12.2021 and 02.01.2025.

6. However, taking into consideration that the matter pertains to the year 1992 and that the pleadings have already been exchanged, it is hereby directed that the learned trial Court shall make all possible efforts to decide the Original Suit No.1588 of 1992, Devnarayan and others vs. Rajendra Prasad and others expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

January 19, 2026 Ashish Dewal

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench