Dismissed¶21

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026CMRAD/70/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMRAD No. 70 of 2026, Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, decision dated May 6, 2026; Coram: Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ.). Review application dismissed; delay condonation application allowed; no error apparent on record; reference to petitioner's inordinate delay of four years in approaching the Court. Counsel: Janendra Kumar Verma and Deepak Kumar Verma for applicant; C.S.C. for opposite parties.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the review application condoned; review application dismissed. ¶21

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

LUCKNOW

¶3

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 70 of 2026

Sunil Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others	....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Janendra Kumar Kumar Verma	Verma,	Deepak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

C.M. Application No.1 of 2026 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

We have perused the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application and find that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the review application.

¶13

The delay condonation application is allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

¶15

Order on Review Application

¶16

The present review application is devoid of any merit as there is no error apparent on the record. This court after examining the matter had held that the petitioner approached the court after an inordinate delay of four years.

¶17

In light of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the said

CMRAD No. 70 of 2026

order.

Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

¶22

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶23

May 6, 2026

¶24

Ashutosh

¶25

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

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Northern Refrigeration Company Thru. Authorized Representative Jank Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax U.P. Lko. and Another

M/S Bachhuka Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

National Highway Authority of India Thru. Project Director Lucknow vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Goldar Hospital Thru. Proprietor and Managing Director Sri Manish Kumar Goldar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko and 4 Others

Atam Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others