Allahabad High Court
SPLAD/416/2008 of STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. IRRIGATION and 3 ORS. Vs MOHD. MUSTAKIM S/S 6860/2007 on 21 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 416 of 2008 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M.A. No.60584 of 2008 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. This appeal was filed by the State on 22.07.2008 challenging the judgment and order
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 416 of 2008
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
C.M.A. No.60584 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 22.07.2008 challenging the judgment and order dated 26.10.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.6860 (S/S) of 2007. The delay condonation application has remained pending ever since then. The appeal is barred by six months and 9 days. 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.
3. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The affidavit only narrates the movement of the file from one desk/office to another without demonstrating any promptness on the part of the appellant to file the appeal within the limitation prescribed. This only demonstrates the casual and negligent manner in which the matter was processed from one desk/office or another.
4. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered in view of the recent judgment 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 OnLine 1969.
5. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected, consequently the appeal is also dismissed. November 21, 2025 Anand/- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rahul Srivastava (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Irrigation And 3 Ors. .....Appellant(s) Mohd. Mustakim S/S 6860/2007 .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench