The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition 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.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a Special Appeal filed by Jagdish and 4 Others.
The appeal is directed against order dated 1.2.2024 passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Judicial (II), Varanasi Division, District Ghazipur has been rejected.
The petitioners have preferred revision under Section 219 of the U.P Land Revenue Act, which came to be dismissed by the revisional authority ex parte on 29.1.2016. An application seeking recall of the order was filed on 18.1.2022 along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The application contained allegations against the counsel in not informing the petitioners about the dismissal of the case.
The revisional authority after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the reasons seeking condonation of delay were neither proper nor sufficient and consequently rejected the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the application seeking recall.
Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. The Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the inordinate delay of six years was not properly explained, dismissed the petition.
Counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions that the revisional authority as well as Single Judge were not justified in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay and the petition. Submissions have made that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the application seeking recall with delay and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.
“Despite the fact that the application seeking condonation was rejected by the revisional authority against which the petition was rejected by the Court, the appeal is also barred by limitation. No proper reason has been given for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay.
Be that as it may, the determination made by the revisional authority and the Single Judge after going through the application made in this regard whereby the allegations were made against the counsel regarding not informing, however, it is nowhere indicated that the appellants have been contacting the counsel and was not given the information pertaining to dismissal. 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”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.