Allahabad High Court
CMRAD/237/2024 of RANJAN UPADHYAY Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME U.P. LKO. AND 6 OTHERS on 9 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2024 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. (Order on I.A. No. 01 of 2024) This review application was filed with delay of 196 days. This Court had issued notice to the
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2024 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. (Order on I.A. No. 01 of 2024) This review application was filed with delay of 196 days. This Court had issued notice to the respondents on the application for condonation of delay. Office has reported that although notice was issued and envelopes were sent, it has not been returned undelivered. It has also reported that no counsel has filed power on behalf of respondents. Since, no undelivered envelope has returned to the Office and no vakalatnama has been received, we deem service upon respondent nos. 1 to 7 to be complete. Since, no objection has been filed on the application for condonation of delay, we allow the application and condone the delay in filing review application. (Order on Review Application) Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has stated that writ petition was dismissed on terms of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Prakash Mishra, Satya Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Ranjan Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
learned Standing Counsel has argued that no part of cause of action has arisen within State of Uttar Pradesh. However, it is the case of the applicant-petitioner that the petition had been filed against issuance of license to opposite party no.7 and its renewal also which has been done by opposite party no.2/District Magistrate, Ayodhya. It is his case that part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court sitting at Lucknow. We allow the review application and, accordingly, recall our order dated 27.04.2024 and restore WRIT - C No.3813 of 2024 to its original number. List WRIT - C No.3813 of 2024 before appropriate Court. December 9, 2025 Mohit Singh/- CMRAD No. 237 of 2024 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench