Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Surendra Mani - Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22636 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
(A) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 200 and 201 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3 and 5 - Writ petition challenging orders of Naib Tehsildar and Commissioner regarding restoration of a mutation case - The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the restoration application was not condoned as no separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed - The court held that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown - The restoration application was allowed as the delay was justified. (Paras 4, 11, 31, 34)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is discretionary and can be exercised even on an oral request if sufficient cause is shown. (Paras 11, 30)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose over the succession of property belonging to Janaki Devi, with conflicting wills presented by the parties. The Naib Tehsildar dismissed a mutation case in default, and the respondents sought to restore it, which was initially denied due to alleged delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the lower courts' decisions to condone the delay and restore the case, as sufficient cause was established for the non-appearance of the parties.
Issues: The main issues were whether a separate application for condonation of delay was necessary and whether the lower courts had jurisdiction to recall the ex-parte order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay does not preclude the court from exercising its discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown, aligning with precedents that emphasize the importance of justice over procedural technicalities.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :
''(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.6.2023 and 31.1.2024 passed by Court of Naib Tehsildar Sadar in Case No. 9426 of 2020 Deoria as well as order dated 28.2.2024 passed by Court of Commissioner Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur in Revision No. 926/23, which is annexed as Annexure 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition.
(B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent and directing them (respondent No. 3) to direct the parties for maintain status quo on the spot, during the pendncy of the case.''
3. Brief facts of the case are that a dispute arose as to succession of one Janaki Devi, widow of Hari Nandan. Smt. Janaki Devi executed a Will dated 29.10.1993 in favour of the petitioner. The predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 claimed the property in dispute on the basis of Will executed by Hari Nandan, husband of Janaki Devi. In this regard, Mutation Case No. 427 of 1994 was filed by the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The aforementioned case was dismissed in default by order dated 8.6.2017 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Deoria-respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid mutation case Damadi-predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 died and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were substituted in his place. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 moved an application dated 26.2.2020 before respondent No. 3 for recalling the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the case in default. Copy of the application is annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his objections on 3.3.2022 to the restoration/recall application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 pleading inter alia that the said application is not maintainable as there was no application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The objections filed by the petitioner are annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 2.6.2023 after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, condoned the delay in filing the restoration application. Copy of the order dated 2.6.2023 is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Against the order dated 2.6.2023, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur-respondent No. 2 which has been dismissed by order dated 28.2.2024. Copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In the meantime, restoration application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was also allowed by order dated 31.1.2024. Copy of the order dated 31.1.2024 is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Hence the present writ petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no separate application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application for recalling the order dated 8.6.2017 and therefore, respondent No. 3 has erroneously condoned the delay in filing the application after considering the objections of the petitioner and the said order is without jurisdiction, in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioner that under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred as ''the Act, 1901''), there is no provision by which the provisions of Limitation Act were made applicable to the proceedings under the Act, 1901 and therefore, also the delay could not have been condoned by respondent No. 3. Admittedly, the proceedings were under the provisions of the Act0, 191. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the D
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Application for mutation – Condonation of delay - The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is a....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
Law of Limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay and in an application filed under Sectio....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discret....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the grounds for delay condonation and the liberal approach to adjudicate an issue on its merits.
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
