Ram Lakhan And 2 Others vs Addl.Commissioner (Prashsan) ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1803 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2412 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner (Prashsan) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharavan Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

Under challenge is the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Ayodhya Division) Ayodhya whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as being barred by limitation and the explanation as furnished for seeking condonation of delay of about 42 years and odd was not found sufficient.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court concerned has not considered the cause and explanation for the delay in the proper perspective. It is further urged that a liberal approach should have been adopted and in the aforesaid circumstances by refusing to condone the delay, the Court has committed an error.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the material on record, it appears that a compromise was arrived at between three brothers who were parties to the suit for division of their land holding along with the suit for declaration. The judgment and decree dated 27.05.1971 which was a consent order was an outcome of a compromise which is sought to be challenged by the present petitioners by filing an appeal in the year 2014 almost after 42 years.

From the perusal of the memo of appeal which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 read with the order passed by the Appellate Court, this Court finds that no error can be seen as the explanation is completely bereft of necessary details to condone the delay of 42 years. It is no doubt true that condonation of delay is to be liberally construed but at the same time if the provisions of law have to be given any meaningful effect, it has also to be seen that the person coming before the Court must furnish a proper explanation.

In absence of material particulars, this Court finds that there can be no error found in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya dated 16.07.2021 in refusing to condone the delay. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any material aspect has not been considered while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.4.2022

Asheesh