Sabir Ali vs Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Administrator and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 32 of 2026

Sabir Ali

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Nagar Nigam Lko. through Administrator and 4 others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Chief Justice's Court

¶8

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Anu Pratap Singh learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶10

The instant review petition has been preferred under Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2026 whereby Special Appeal Defective No.41 of 2026 preferred by the review petitioner, which was barred by limitation, was dismissed.

¶11

Sri Anu Pratap Singh learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that certain adverse remarks were made by the writ court against the review petitioner in Writ Petition No.1282 (MS) of 2010 (Aga Ali Hasan Khan @ Danish Khan vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and Ors) which was decided on 19.03.2010. It was further submitted that the review petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition and there was no occasion for the writ court to pass any adverse remarks against the review petitioner.

¶12

It was further urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, where the adverse remarks were passed without affording any opportunity to the review petitioner, which in turn was having an adverse effect in several other litigation being contested by the review petitioner hence, the special appeal which was preferred by the review petitioner ought to have been considered on its own merit.

¶13

CMRA No. 32 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Sri Singh has further urged that the special appeal was dismissed on account of delay and the delay was calculated from the date of the decision rendered by the writ court on 19.03.2010. It is urged that since the review petitioner acquired right only after of demise of Ms. Fazal Fatima who died on 01.05.2021 and as per her last Will dated 18.12.2020, the review petitioner acquired right hence, the delay of 5032 days as reported was incorrect and the sole ground upon which the Special Appeal was dismissed was noticing this humongous delay. In such circumstances, the order dated 19.01.2026 deserves to be reviewed and the Special Appeal Defective No.41 of 2026 should be considered on merits and the adverse remarks made exparte in the judgment of the writ court 19.03.2010 deserves to be expunged.

¶16

The Court has heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and also perused the material on record including the paper book of the Special Appeal Defective No.41 of 2026.

¶17

In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, it will be appropriate to put the controversy in a perspective.

¶18

Writ Petition No.1282 (MS) of 2010 was filed by Sri Aga Ali Hasan Khan @ Danish Khan wherein an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.02.2010 was under challenge. What is significant to note that the said writ petition though was filed by Aga Ali Hasan Khan @ Danish but it was presented and contested by his power of attorney holder namely Sabir Ali, who is the present review petitioner.

¶19

The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 19.03.2010. The fact remains that even though the said writ petition was dismissed which was filed by Aga Ali Hasan Khan but since it was presented and contested by the power of attorney holder hence, it cannot be said that the review petitioner being the power of attorney holder and contesting the petition was not aware of the contents of the said judgment and order passed by the writ court. Thus, it cannot be gainfully urged that the review petitioner was not aware of the observations made in the judgment and order dated 19.03.2010. In case, if the review petitioner had any grievance against the

¶20

CMRA No. 32 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

adverse remarks, he could have raised the aforesaid plea at the relevant time. There has been no explanation as to why the review petitioner remained silent since 19.03.2010 till filing of the Special Appeal Defective No.41 of 2026 which was filed on 12.01.2026 i.e for about 16 years.

¶23

A feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner to state that he had no right in the property in question and only after the death of Ms.Fazal Fatima, he acquired rights vide Will dated 18.12.2020. It is only after the death of Ms. Fazal Fatima that the review petitioner acquired rights and it is then that he felt aggrieved by the observations made in the judgment dated 19.03.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1282 (MS) of 2010.

¶24

Apparently, the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner is also misconceived in as much as the observations made in the judgment dated 19.03.2010 were known to the review petitioner as he was the power of attorney holder who had instituted and contested the said petition.

¶25

The review petitioner had laid a challenge to the judgment of the writ court dated 19.03.2010 in the year, 2026 by filing a Special Appeal which was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. For the purposes of seeking condonation of delay, it is always the date of knowledge which is important and a party is required to establish a sufficient case. It could not be disputed by Sri Singh that the review petitioner was aware of the said observations made in the judgment dated 19.03.2010. The observations, if any, in the judgment dated 19.03.2010 were referable to the petitioner or the respondents of the said petition. Even if, review petitioner was personally not a party but the fact remains that he was aware of the alleged adverse comments mentioned by name of the review petitioner and if the review petitioner felt aggrieved, he could have assailed it at the relevant time but he did not.

¶26

Moreover, he allegedly acquired rights in the property only through the Will of Ms. Fazal Fatima as alleged even in that case, the review petitioner is bound by the acts of his predecessor in interest as the review

¶27

CMRA No. 32 of 2026

¶28

4

¶29

petitioner stepped into her shoes. The Court while dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay specifically noted the averments made by the review petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay in the special appeal and found that no sufficient cause was made out.

¶30

In light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the order dismissing the appeal as time barred was just and proper specially when the grounds for seeking condonation of delay were specifically noted and it was recorded that there has been no worthwhile explanation seeking condonation of 5032 days of delay.

¶31

This Court is of the clear opinion that there is no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of record to entertain the instant review petition. The forum of review is not a disguise for seeking rehearing on merits. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm opinion that the review petition is patently misconceived and is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two weeks from today.

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶33

March 18, 2026

¶34

Harshita

¶35

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

Sabir Ali v. Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Administrator and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Ali v. Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Administrator and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. It Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sanjay Sharma vs Dilip Kumar Sharma and 9 Others

Ram Chandar Mishra vs Indira Avas Samiti Ltd., Balrampur and Others

Mahendra Pratap Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandy Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Education Lko. and 3 Others vs Smt. Malti Singh and Ors.

In Re-Suo Moto Writ Petition Regarding Functioning of Revenue Officials at Kunda, Distt. Pratapgarh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 5 Others