Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed against the orders passed by the Single Judge, wherein the writ petition filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order passed by Additional Commissioner has been rejected, the division bench of Arun Bhansali, C.J. and Vikas Budhwar, J., while dismissing the appeal, said that the party, which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case.
Background: The petitioners had filed for revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 but their application was dismissed ex parte by the revisional authority in 2016, unknown to them. They later sought to recall this dismissal in 2022, citing their lawyer’s failure to inform them of the initial decision. However, both the revisional authority and the Single Judge dismissed their applications, citing the unexplained six-year delay. The appellants are now appealing these decisions, arguing that the delay was due to sufficient cause.
Court’s Analysis & Decision:
The Single Judge concluded that as the inordinate delay of six years was not properly explained, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Court said that even though the application seeking condonation was rejected by the revisional authority against which the writ petition was rejected by this Court, the present appeal is also barred by limitation. The affidavit accompanying the condonation application fails to provide a satisfactory reason for the delay.
The Court noted that while the appellants alleged their counsel failed to inform them about the case’s dismissal, there’s no evidence they actively sought updates from the counsel during the six-year period.
Thus, the Court said that the appellants cannot solely rely on their counsel’s alleged negligence to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Given these considerations, the Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed it.
[Jagdish v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 1480, Order dated 25-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel of Appellants: Advocate Awashesh Kumar, Advocate Imtyaz Ahmad
Counsel of Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel
