Shesh Mani Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1278 of 2024

Shesh Mani Maurya

.....Revisionist(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arvind Kumar, Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra, Prabhu Narain Tiwari

¶5

Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

Order on:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024

¶8

List has been revised.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist besides the present revision, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision has also been moved, seeking condonation of 922 days.

¶11

Ground taken in the application for condonation of delay was perused and the revisionist in para 2 of the affidavit has taken the following ground in respect of the condonation of delay, which reads as under:-

¶12

" Para No. 2:- That the applicant could not approach before this Hon'ble Court within time because he wants to settle the matter out of court but could not succeed thereafter he obtained the certified copy from his counsel and approached before this Hon'ble Court for filing present Criminal Revision challenging the order dated 28.10.2021, so delay if any in filing the present Criminal Revision is neither intentional not deliberate and liable to be condoned by this Hon'ble Court."

¶13

It is matter of record that the revisionist has participated in proceedings

¶14

CRLRD No. 1278 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

before the court of learned Principal Judge Family Court, Mirzapur, therefore, the said fact that, the order dated 28.10.2021 was not in the knowledge of the revisionist herein in false and merely saying, that the revisionist desired matter to be settled though mediation, but could not succeed is not sufficient. No other ground, whatsoever has been taken by the revisionist seeking condonation of delay in filing 922 days.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has prayed that, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Learned A.G.A. for the State has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 .

¶18

After hearing the submissions, it is needless to say that, every case has to be decided on its own merit, but the conduct of, the litigant and the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay are equally important. The cause shown in the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision is neither sufficient nor convincing the court. Moreover, having regard to the law laid down in the case of Shivamma (Dead) (Supra), no good ground has been made in filing the application for condonation of delay of 922 days and the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the delay condonation application is accordingly dismissed and no further order is required to be passed in the present revision.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is consigned to record.

¶20

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶21

March 16, 2026

¶22

Gss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shesh Mani Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shesh Mani Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nilesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Ravendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Rameshchandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.