Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and Sri Ajai Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
2. Since the question involved is purely legal in nature, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
Facts:-
3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.11.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in Revision No.86 of 2023 (Computerized No.AG202301010086) by way of which the remand order dated 19.4.2023 has been set aside. It is admitted between the parties that in proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 an order dated 26.11.2007 was passed in favour of the respondent no.6 and against which after more than 11 years a restoration application dated 23.6.2018 was filed by the State for recall of the order dated 26.11.2007 and similarly a restoration application dated 15.6.2018 was also filed by the petitioner for the recall of the very same order dated 26.11.200
The requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay is paramount, ensuring that established legal rights are not disturbed without compelling justification.
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 ruled that a liberal approach cannot override statutory limitations, emphasizing the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.
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.
Failure to record reasons for condoning inordinate unexplained delay violates natural justice; constitutes jurisdictional error warranting writ interference under Article 226 despite alternate remedy....
The court established that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is essential to uphold the principles of substantial justice in delay condonation applications.
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....
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
