Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J.MUNIR
Ambey Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of time-barred appeal and claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's reasons for delay (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. implications of lengthy delay in judicial procedures (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. directive for communication of order (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot dated 19.10.2024, dismissing the petitioner’s revision and affirming an order made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Chitrakoot dated 31.01.2024, dismissing the petitioner’s Appeal No. 479 of 2023, arising out of an order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.05.1980 as barred by time.
2. The short facts necessary to determine this motion are that a time-barred appeal was preferred by the petitioner, Ambey Singh, against the order made by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4413, State v. Ambey Singh , dated 16.05.1980, under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [‘Act of 1953’ for short] on 30.11.2023 with a delay of 43 years. The appeal was filed with the aid of an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, praying for condonation supported by an affidavit.
3. The
The law of limitation necessitates prompt legal action; extraordinary delays in appeals require compelling reasons for condonation, which were not present in this case.
Inordinate delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
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 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 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.
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....
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
