Allahabad High Court
Gyaneshwar Prasad vs Munni on 20 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90154-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 175 of 2024
Applicant :- Gyaneshwar Prasad
Opposite Party :- Munni
Counsel for Applicant :- Paras Nath Singh,Prem Chand Saroj,Satish Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kamal Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate, for the applicant, in support of the delay condonation and review application.
2. The review application has been filed by Ghyaneshwar Prasad (defendant-respondent) for review of judgment and decree dated 2.11.2016 in First Appeal No. 641 of 1998, connected with First Appeal No. 291 of 1998.
3. The aforesaid appeals arose out of judgment and decree dated 16.9.1998 and 29.9.1998, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising out of Original Suit No. 49 of 1996 and Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1996, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the reference was answered holding the defendant-respondent (applicant herein) entitled to compensation of the disputed acquired land. The same was reversed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment and decree dated 2.11.2016. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been decreed and the land acquisition reference was also answered in her favour.
4. The effect of the above declaration was that the plaintiff-appellant became entitled to compensation of the disputed acquired land. Since the passing of the aforesaid judgment, eight years have elapsed and now the instant review application has been filed. It is reported to be beyond time by 2,684 days as on 12.4.2024.
5. The delay condonation application is supported by affidavit of nephew of the applicant. The explanation for delay has been given in paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are as follows: -
"2. That the respondent is an old person, suffering from old aged ailments, living in Delhi for which she rarely come to Ghaziabad/Gautam Budh Nagar and due to old age she unable to move here and there and also they unable to law due to this reason they could not connect with any counsel or any competent person of the society and also no any information received by the previous counsel.
3. That unfortunately in a ceremony party she came to know about the order 09.03.2016 passed by this Hon'ble court when file izra before the court below.
4. That thereafter the appellant directed to the deponent who contact his counsel, without any delay, thereafter the present review application is being filed."
6. The explanation given is not worthy of acceptance. Although, it is alleged that the applicant was not aware of the judgment of this Court and he came to know of it in a ceremony, but the date when the applicant came to know of it has not been disclosed. Even if the statement in the affidavit that the applicant has been residing in Delhi is accepted, we are not convinced with the explanation that because of said reason, he could not come to know of the judgment of this Court, or that prevented him from inquiring about the fate of his case. The review application has been filed not through the counsel who argued the appeal. It is not the case of the applicant that his counsel did not inform him. In any case, it cannot be expected from a litigant that he would not inquire about the fate of his case for eight years. The rights which have been finalized long back, cannot be re-opened again in the garb of the instant review application.
7. The review application is inordinately delayed and barred by laches.
8. Accordingly, the delay condonation application as well as review application are hereby rejected.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 20.5.2024/Jaideep/-
