The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an appeal seeking condonation of delay observed that the party which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed against the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was dismissed. The application contained allegations against the counsel in not informing the petitioners about the dismissal of the case. The revisional authority after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the reasons seeking condonation of delay were neither proper nor sufficient and consequently rejected the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the application seeking recall.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the revisional authority as well as the learned Single Judge were not justified in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay and the writ petition and further submitted that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the application seeking recall with delay and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that despite the fact that the application seeking condonation was rejected by the revisional authority against which the writ petition was rejected by this Court, the present appeal is also barred by limitation and no proper reason has been given for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay.
Further, it was stated that the determination made by the revisional authority and learned Single Judge after going through the application made in this regard whereby the allegations were made against the counsel regarding not informing, however, it is nowhere indicated that the appellants have been contacting the counsel and were not given the information pertaining to dismissal and the party which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Jagdish and Ors. vs State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Budhwar
Case No.: SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 355 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Awashesh Kumar, Imtyaz Ahmad
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
