Shivnath And Others vs Addl. Commisioner ( ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1616 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 154 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Shivnath And Others
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commisioner ( Administration ) Lucknow Division, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Kushwaha,Jaskaran Lal Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

(C.M.Application No. Nil of 2023)

This is an amendment application.

Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application as also that no objection has been raised by the side opposite, the same is allowed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate necessary amendment as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of amendment application, during the course of the day.

Order on Petition

Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

In view of the order proposed, issuance of notices to opposite party no. 2 to 4 is hereby dispensed with.

The petitioner has sought the following main relief:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party No. 1 Additional Commissioner (Administration) Lucknow Division Lucknow to expeditiously decide the application for vacation of interim order dated 08.02.2017 filed in Revision No. C20171000137 (Dilip Pal & others Versus Shyamlal and another) and revision also, pending in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Administration) Lucknow Division Lucknow, according to law within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the Revision No. C20171000137 (Dilip Pal & others Versus Shyamlal and another), filed by private opposite party nos. 2 to 4 interim order was passed on 02.08.2017 and on coming to know about the same, the petitioner preferred an application dated 26.04.2018 for vacation of interim order dated 02.08.2017. The issue of maintainability of revision was also raised therein.

He further submitted that revision was filed alongwith application for condonation of delay, however, the order was passed without condoning the delay, whereas the law is otherwise. He further stated that application for condonation of delay is liable to be decided first before entering into the merits of the case. Reliance has also been placed on paragraph 32 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noharlal Verma Versus District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445, which reads as under:-

"Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation, a Court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits."

The prayer is to allow the petition and direct the authority concerned to decide the stay vacation application as also the revision within time stipulated.

Having considered the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to decide the pending revision, detailed above, within 6 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. For conducting the proceedings in the time specified, unnecessary adjournments be avoided.

Order Date :- 16.1.2023

Jyoti/-