Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Sahu vs Smt Sanchita Sahu on 1 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:37308-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 76 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sahu
Opposite Party :- Smt Sanchita Sahu
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024
Re: Civil Misc. Review Application
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The Stamp Reporter has reported latches of 314 days in filing the review application.
3. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are quoted as under:-
"2. That there is any deliberate delay on the part of the applicant in filing the present review petition the applicant after passing of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by Hon'ble Justice Mr. Suneet Kumar, J. and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Rajendra Kumar-IV, J. in First Appeal No. 357 of 2023 (Rajesh Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Sanchita Sahu) got unwell and further after he gout recover from his illness then he again approached to his counsel and inquired regarding further action then on the advise of his present counsel Mr. Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, after collecting all the necessary documents as well as certified copy of the above mentioned order dated 01.03.2023 and is now filing present review petition without any inordinate delay.
3. That if any delay occurred it is not deliberate action of the petitioner hence this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay if any in filing the present review petition, otherwise the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
4. The assertion made are extremely general in nature and in our opinion the same do not offer sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
5. By the impugned order after considering the case of the applicant on merits the appeal was dismissed. The impugned order dated 1.3.2023 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
By the instant appeal, appellant has raised challenge the judgment and order dated 16 December 2022, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Allahabad, allowing the interim maintenance application 7(ka) under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby, the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month towards maintenance.
The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. Finding has been returned that petitioner is a civil engineer and is able to earn sufficient amount. The respondent/defendant has left the matrimonial home on being subjected to harassment and torture, consequently, several criminal cases were filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
In the event the order is not complied, it will be open for the court below to adopt coercive measures against the appellant and make recovery from the assets of the appellant."
6. This clearly reflects that the status of the qualification of the applicant has been clearly noticed and only Rs. 5,000/- per month have been awarded towards maintenance.
7. We have also gone through the grounds taken in the review application and we find that the applicant is seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is beyond the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C as the matter is being re-agitated on merits on the grounds that were already considered in the impugned order.
8. We find that this is nothing but an attempt to get re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
9. Recently a Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us V.K. Birla,J. was a member) in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 25 (DB), has considered the entire history and scope of Section 114 and order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and explained the scope of review.
10. A reference may also be made to a judgment of this Court dated 30.5.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 293 of 2021 (Union Bank Of India vs. Additional District Magistrate, Meerut And 2 Others) and judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 260 of 2023 (Smt. Gopa Bahadur vs. State of U.P. and others).
11. In such view of the matter, we do not find that the cause shown is sufficient to condone such huge delay of 314 days. The grounds taken in the review application clearly indicates that the applicant is seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible in law.
12. Accordingly, delay condonation application stands rejected and consequently the review application also stands rejected.
Order Date :- 1.3.2024
Lalit Shukla
