Allowed¶18

Shivkanti @ Sheo Kanti v. Usha Khanna

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026A227/519/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay — Section 5 of the Limitation Act — sufficient cause — plea of financial difficulty / inability to arrange money for court expenditure — 66 days' delay in filing regular appeal against decree in Regular Suit No. 608/2010 — rejection by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 539/2025 set aside in Article 227 jurisdiction — liberal approach where delay is short and not inordinate — Shivkanti @ Sheo Kanti v. Usha Khanna, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), decided February 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.01.2026 set aside; application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 66 days' delay in filing appeal allowed; appellate court directed to hear the appeal on its merits expeditiously. ¶18

Shivkanti @ Sheo Kanti vs Usha Khanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Article 227 should be allowed by setting aside the appellate court's rejection of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 66 days' delay in filing the appeal, i.e., whether the plea of financial difficulty constitutes sufficient cause for the delay.

¶15

Court's answer

The plea of financial difficulty makes out a sufficient cause for the 66 days' delay in filing the regular appeal.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 539/2025 is set aside; the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is allowed, and the appellate court is directed to proceed to hear the appeal on its merits expeditiously.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition (Matters Under Article 227 No. 519 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Subhash Vidyarthi, J., decided February 18, 2026): The Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 66 days' delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025 in Regular Suit No. 608/2010, observing that the petitioner had full knowledge of the decree and that her plea of difficulty in arranging court fee was not correct. The petitioner's affidavit had stated that her husband owns a very small sweet shop and she could not arrange money for incurring expenditure in filing the appeal; the opposite party objected that the shop is not small and she is not a poor person. Held: the plea of financial difficulty makes out a sufficient cause for the 66-day delay in filing the regular appeal. The impugned order was set aside, the condonation application was allowed, and the appellate court was directed to hear the appeal on its merits expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 519 of 2026

¶3

Shivkanti @ Sheo Kanti

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Usha Khanna	Versus .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Alok Srivastava, Chandra Shekhar Azad : Surendra Kumar, Vimal Kishor Singh

¶6

Court No. - 17

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Alok Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vimal Kishor Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶9

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 06.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 539/2025 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 66 days delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) FTC, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 608/2010 has been rejected. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner had stated that her husband owns a very small sweet shop and she could not arrange money for incurring expenditure in filing the appeal.

¶10

A copy of the objections filed against the application has been brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit. The opposite party stated in the objection that the sweet shop of the petitioner's husband is not small and she is not a poor person.

¶11

The appellate court has rejected the application stating that the petitioner had full knowledge of the decree. The CPC contains provisions for persons who are facing financial difficulty. The plea of difficulty in

¶12

A227 No. 519 of 2026

¶13

¶14

arranging court fee is not correct.

¶15

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while examining reasons for delay in filing an appeal, the Court should adopt a liberal approach, more particularly when the delay is merely of a few days and is not inordinate.

¶16

Although the learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the objection, he could not dispute the aforesaid position of law.

¶17

Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, its objections and the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered view that the plea of financial difficulty makes out a sufficient cause for delay of 66 day in filing a regular appeal.

¶18

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 539/2025 is set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) FTC, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 608/2010 is allowed. The appellate court is directed to proceed to hear the appeal on its merits expeditiously.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

February 18, 2026

¶21

Pradeep/-

¶22

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

Shivkanti @ Sheo Kanti v. Usha Khanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkanti @ Sheo Kanti v. Usha Khanna

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

Dev Bakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Ayodhya and 3 Others

Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ayush Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and 5 Others

Shivam Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pyare Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Supply Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Shishupal @ Shispal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko