Allahabad High Court
Ramveer Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Joint Secy. ( Sanyukt ... on 21 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11401-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 27 of 2025
Applicant :- Ramveer Singh
Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru. Joint Secy. ( Sanyukt Sachiv ) F.F.R. Division (Enemy Property) New Delhi And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Hairdaya Narain Tiwari,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Atul Tiwari,Hari Mangal Singh,Jai Priya Swapnil
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the review-applicant.
This application has been filed by the review-applicant for reviewing the judgment/order dated 17.8.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 342 of 2022.
As there is a delay of 513 days in filing the review application, an application for condonation delay supported by an affidavit has been filed.
The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay are that after passing the impugned judgment and order dated 17.8.2023, he could not file the review application within stipulated time in view of the fact that the Apex Court with regard to enemy property had passed the judgment on 22.2.2024 enumerating some conditions and he thought that the judgment passed by the Apex Court will be complied with by the opposite party No.2 in his case also. When the opposite party No.2 did not do so, the review-applicant, after considering the relevant judgments, approached his counsel to file the review application on 1.2.2025 i.e. after about two years.
A careful perusal of the record shows that the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 has been passed and as per Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, it ought to have been filed within 30 days, i..e, the limitation prescribed in the Rules. It is not the case of the review-applicant that the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court in LNN case was before the impugned judgment and order. Thereafter, he waited for another year for compliance of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Enemy Property Act, 1968 in another case, which has not been filed by him.
The Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer [AIR 2014 SC 746] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the 8 (2013) 14 SCC 81 Page 11 of 17 condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
For these reasons, the explanation offered by the review-applicant for the delay of 513 days in filing the review application is unconvincing which warrants rejection of the application for condonation of delay outrightly.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay filed by the review-applicant is rejected.
Consequently, the review application is also rejected.
.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]
Order Date :- 21.2.2025
akhilesh/-
