Back
MANISH KUMAR
Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 06.04.2022, appellate order dated 24.09.2020, order dated 14.10.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer and order dated 24.06.2023 (which is an information given to the petitioner).
3. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the revisional order was passed against the petitioner on 06.04.2022 but the petitioner had not explained the laches of about more than two years in filing the present writ petition.
4. It is further submitted by learned Standing counsel that the appellate court and the revisional court have rightly rejected the revision and the appeal preferred by the petitioner as the appeal was preferred after the delay of 43 years, without explaining the inordinate delay properly. The reason shown in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal wherein it has only been said that she was under impression that after the demise of her fath
Inordinate delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.
Point of Law : It is well settled proposition of law that existence of sufficient cause is sine quo non, for condonation of delay. In absence of being any finding that cause shown is sufficient delay....
Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.
The law of limitation necessitates prompt legal action; extraordinary delays in appeals require compelling reasons for condonation, which were not present in this case.
The court emphasized that extraordinary delays in appeal require strict scrutiny, asserting that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to justify condonation, balancing justice with the rights accrue....
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
