Back
DINESH PATHAK
Uma Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Kanan Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prabha Shanker Pandey and Shri G.R. Niranjan, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer, whereby restoration application dated 24.03.2000 moved on behalf of petitioner assailing the order dated 28.02.1996 has been rejected, and aforesaid order passed by Consolidation Officer has been affirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 15.09.2017.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that present petitioner and his two brothers, namely, Govind Prasad and Brij Mohan have filed an objection dated 19.01.1989 under Section 9(A)2 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') along with delay condonation application against contesting respondents claiming their right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of gift deed dated 10.07.1
The court emphasized that negligence or inaction by a litigant or their counsel cannot justify the condonation of delay in filing applications, reinforcing the need for diligence in legal proceedings....
The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.
A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must demonstrate sufficient cause; mere invocation of a liberal approach unaccompanied by due diligence will not suffice.
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
The court reaffirmed that procedural compliance under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is mandatory, and non-adherence, especially concerning the recording of compromises, nullifies the authori....
(1) – Limitation period – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – While considering plea for condona....
Condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of Civil Suit – Delay to be condoned in interest of justice provided that applicant satisfies court that he had sufficient cause for not pre....
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
