Allahabad High Court
SPLAD/5/2008 of STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN.SECY. P.W.D. and 4 ORS. Vs MANISH S/S 9358/2006 on 16 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 5 of 2008 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M.A. No.411 of 2008 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. This appeal was filed by the State on 02.01.2008 challenging the judgment and order
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 5 of 2008
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
C.M.A. No.411 of 2008 (Application for Condonation of Delay)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. This appeal was filed by the State on 02.01.2008 challenging the judgment and order dated 09.11.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.9358 (S/S) of 2006.
3. The limitation for filing special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is 30 days vide Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Rules, 1952 read with Article 117 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal was filed with a delay of one year and nine days. The application for condonation of delay has remained pending till date.
4. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and do not find the explanation offered to be satisfactory. The affidavit only mentions about the file being sent from one desk/office to another seeking opinion or permission for filing the appeal, which is hardly an acceptable explanation for such inordinate delay in view of the recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shivamma (dead) by LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pushpendra Kumar Singh State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. And 4 Ors. .....Appellant(s) Manish S/S 9358/2006 .....Respondent(s)
OnLine 1969. The permission itself was granted by the State Government on 23.10.2007, that is after a delay of more than 11 months. In the interregnum, as stated, the file kept on moving from one desk/office to another. Even after grant of permission, the appeal was filed only on 02.01.2008. There is no satisfactory explanation for the intervening period.
5. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. December 16, 2025 Anand/- SPLAD No. 5 of 2008 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench