Back
DINESH PATHAK
Jagat Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Pathak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 to 4, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No. 5 and perused the record on board.
2. Instant writ petition has arisen from the restoration application. Grievance of the petitioner is that restoration application dated 14.7.2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 29.9.1984 passed by the Consolidation Officer has illegally been rejected by all the three consolidation courts.
3. Record reveals that the Consolidation Officer has passed order dated 29.9.1984 under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act with respect to Khata No. 75 whereby objection filed on behalf of Matru alias Prem Chand has been allowed granting him co-tenancy and, accordingly, share of the parties has been decided. All the three consolidation courts have given categorical finding that neither the grand father of the respondent-applicant nor his father had filed any recall application or objection claiming their exclusive right and title over the property in question. It has been observed as well that Prabhu, grand father of the petitioner, had two sons namely Basanta an
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 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 law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
(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....
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
The court ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.
Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.
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
