Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jaspreet Singh
Riyaz Ahmad Khan – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate/District – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Shashwat Srivastava for the private respondents.
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that Shri Shashwat Srivastava and Shri U.S. Sahai had already put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.5 and 12 on caveat and today he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the remaining respondents no.2, 4, 6, 11 and 13 and thus all the contesting parties are now represented. The respondents no.14 to 18 are proforma parties who did not contest the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
3. Accordingly with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter-affidavit.
4. Shri M. E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that an application for recall which was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT 1963 has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur by means of the impugned order dated 20.09.2024.
5. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that whi
The sufficiency of cause must be the focus in applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not previous conduct or merits of prior orders.
Point of Law : It is only after that application is allowed, appeal can be entertained and heard on merits.
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....
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.
The rejection of applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC leads to the dismissal of the main petitions, making them appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d....
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....
The court reinforced that the State is treated equally with other litigants regarding the condonation of delay, requiring a valid explanation for any delay.
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
