# Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad & Anr v. Smt. Mithlesh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 23
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order Defective No. 178 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dig-up-police-headquarters-allahabad-anr-v-smt-mithlesh-ors-53049
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section
5 - Delay Condonation - Departmental
appeal filed with delay of 700 days - St.
failed to furnish sufficient cause - Casual
and negligent conduct - Delay attributed
to
administrative
lethargy
and
bureaucratic red tape - Court held that
such conduct cannot justify condonation
- Exercise of discretion in condoning
delay must be judicious - Delay not
explained satisfactorily Government not
entitled
to
special
treatment
under
limitation law - Appeal dismissed. (Paras
7, 8, 14, and 15)

HELD:
From a perusal of the averments made in the
application for condonation of delay duly
supported by an affidavit and the supplementary
affidavit, it emerges that it took the government
almost ten months to take a decision for filing of
the appeal and despite the appeal having been
allegedly drafted in December 2023, it took the
pairokar almost 11 months in order to find out
as to whether the appeal has in fact been filed
or not. This itself indicates the cavalier and
casual attitude on the part of the officials in
filing the appeal before this Court which has
resulted in a delay of 700 days. (Para 7)

In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been of the view that where
a case has been presented in the Court beyond
limitation, the person has to explain the Court
as to what was the "sufficient cause" which
means an adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the Court within
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
limitation. Though limitation may harshly affect
the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all
rigour when prescribed by statute. (Para 14)

In the instant case, as already indicated above,
there
has
been
a
casual,
cavalier
and
lackadaisical approach on the part of the
appellants all along inasmuch as, it has taken
the St. almost ten months to take a decision for
filing of the appeal and despite the appeal
having been allegedly prepared, it took the
pairokar eleven months to realize that the
appeal has not been filed. This is sheer
negligence on the part of the appellants and
thus, the grounds, as taken in the applications
for condonation of delay, do not inspire
confidence and consequently, the applications
for condonation of delay merit to be rejected
and are accordingly, rejected. (Para 15)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mithlesh & Ors.
23
as by interest of the same, the
claimant will be able to meet out the said
expenses in future.

44.
In
view
of
above
and
considering
over
all
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the appeal filed
by the Insurance Company is misconceived
and the grounds taken therein are not
tenable in the eyes of law and liable to be
dismissed and the appeal filed by the
claimant is liable to be partly allowed and
compensation is liable to be enhanced as
indicated above and accordingly the
claimant is entitled for a total sum of
Rs.9,52,600+Rs.1,00,000+Rs.50,000+Rs.2,
00,000 i.e. Rs.13,02,600/- as compensation
alongwith interest awarded by the tribunal.

45.
With
the
aforesaid,
the
F.A.F.O. No.137 of 2017 filed by the
Insurance Company is hereby dismissed
and the F.A.F.O. No.217 of 2017 filed by
the claimant for enhancement is partly
allowed. The judgment and award dated
23.11.2016 is, accordingly, modified. The
enhanced amount alongwith remaining, if
any, alongwith interest till the date of
deposit shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company within a period of four weeks
from today before the concerned tribunal.
No order as to costs.

46. The amount of statutory deposit
made before this Court for adjustment in
compensation and the tribunal's records
shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal
forthwith and in any case within a period of
three weeks from today.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 23
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal From Order Defective No. 178 of
2024

Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad &
Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Mithlesh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section
5 - Delay Condonation - Departmental
appeal filed with delay of 700 days - St.
failed to furnish sufficient cause - Casual
and negligent conduct - Delay attributed
to
administrative
lethargy
and
bureaucratic red tape - Court held that
such conduct cannot justify condonation
- Exercise of discretion in condoning
delay must be judicious - Delay not
explained satisfactorily Government not
entitled
to
special
treatment
under
limitation law - Appeal dismissed. (Paras
7, 8, 14, and 15)

HELD:
From a perusal of the averments made in the
application for condonation of delay duly
supported by an affidavit and the supplementary
affidavit, it emerges that it took the government
almost ten months to take a decision for filing of
the appeal and despite the appeal having been
allegedly drafted in December 2023, it took the
pairokar almost 11 months in order to find out
as to whether the appeal has in fact been filed
or not. This itself indicates the cavalier and
casual attitude on the part of the officials in
filing the appeal before this Court which has
resulted in a delay of 700 days. (Para 7)

In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been of the view that where
a case has been presented in the Court beyond
limitation, the person has to explain the Court
as to what was the "sufficient cause" which
means an adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the Court within
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
limitation. Though limitation may harshly affect
the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all
rigour when prescribed by statute. (Para 14)

In the instant case, as already indicated above,
there
has
been
a
casual,
cavalier
and
lackadaisical approach on the part of the
appellants all along inasmuch as, it has taken
the St. almost ten months to take a decision for
filing of the appeal and despite the appeal
having been allegedly prepared, it took the
pairokar eleven months to realize that the
appeal has not been filed. This is sheer
negligence on the part of the appellants and
thus, the grounds, as taken in the applications
for condonation of delay, do not inspire
confidence and consequently, the applications
for condonation of delay merit to be rejected
and are accordingly, rejected. (Para 15)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs Living
Media India Ltd. & anr. reported in (2012) 3 SCC
563

2. Union of India Vs Central Tibetan Schools
Admin & ors. reported in (2021) SCC OnLine
119

3. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & ors.
Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in
(2022) 3 SCC 159

4. Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & ors.
Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA) [2024] 4
S.C.R. 241

5. St. of M.P. Vs Ramkumar Choudhary reported
in 2024 INSC 932

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

(Order on I.A. Nos.1/2024 and
3/2025)

1. Heard learned Standing counsel
for the appellant.

2. These are the applications for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal
and the supplementary affidavit in support
of the said application.

3. Delay is of 700 days.

4. Notice has been issued to the
respondents by this Court on 15.01.2025.

5. As per the office report dated
07.03.2025, notice has been served on
respondents No.1 & 3 personally and on
respondents No.2 & 4 through mother and
thus, as per the office report dated
07.03.2025, service of notice upon the
respondents is sufficient. However, nobody
responds on behalf of the respondents, as
such, the Court proceeds to hear and decide
the applications for condonation of delay.

6. Learned Standing counsel has
placed reliance on the applications for
condonation of delay as well as the
supplementary affidavit justifying the delay
in filing the appeal in order to explain the
delay of 700 days which has occurred in
filing of the appeal. He contends that the
judgment was pronounced by the learned
Tribunal on 30.09.2022. The learned
Advocate conducting the said matter
informed about the said judgment through
his letter dated 03.12.2022. In turn, the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Administration) Rampur has informed
through his letter dated 16.12.2022 about
the letter of the learned Advocate and about
the said judgment having been passed by
the Tribunal. Thereafter, a letter was sent to
the Home (Police) Section- 02, Uttar
Pradesh Government, Lucknow regarding
filing of the appeal. Almost ten months
later,
the
government
has
granted
permission for filing of an appeal through
its letter dated 06.10.2023. Thereafter, the
3 All. Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mithlesh & Ors.
25
pairokar had contacted the office of the
learned Chief Standing counsel and the
appeal was prepared in December 2023.
Sanguine in the belief that the appeal has
been filed, the pairokar went away and only
came back in November 2024 to inquire
about the status of the appeal from which it
transpired
that
an
application
for
condonation of delay is to be filed and
thereafter, the application of condonation
along with the appeal itself has been filed
before this Court on 02.12.2024.

7. From a perusal of the averments
made in the application for condonation of
delay duly supported by an affidavit and
the supplementary affidavit, it emerges that
it took the government almost ten months
to take a decision for filing of the appeal
and despite the appeal having been
allegedly drafted in December 2023, it took
the pairokar almost 11 months in order to
find out as to whether the appeal has in fact
been filed or not. This itself indicates the
cavalier and casual attitude on the part of
the officials in filing the appeal before this
Court which has resulted in a delay of 700
days.

8. The delay which often occurs on
the part of the department in filing the
appeals/revisions
has
been
considered
threadbare by the Apex Court in the case of
Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs.
Living
Media
India Ltd.
& Anr.
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein the
Apex Court after placing reliance on
various earlier judgments of the Apex
Court, including a few over which the
learned Standing counsel has also placed
reliance, held as under:-

"27.It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well aware or
conversant
with
the
issues
involved
including
the
prescribed
period
of
limitation for taking up the matter by way
of filing a special leave petition in this
Court. They cannot claim that they have a
separate period of limitation when the
Department was possessed with competent
persons familiar with court proceedings. In
the absence of plausible and acceptable
explanation, we are posing a question why
the delay is to be condoned mechanically
merely because the Government or a wing
of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of
the fact that in a matter of condonation of
delay when there was no gross negligence
or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides,
a liberal concession has to be adopted to
advance substantial justice, we are of the
view that in the facts and circumstances,
the Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of
making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being used
and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody, including the
Government.

29. In our view, it is the right time
to inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentalities that unless
they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was
bona fide effort, there is no need to accept
the usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red tape
in
the
process.
The
government
departments are under a special obligation
to ensure that they perform their duties
with
diligence
and
commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and
should not be used as an anticipated benefit
for the government departments. The law
shelters everyone under the same light and
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few."

9. Likewise, the Apex Court in the
case of Union of India vs. Central
Tibetan Schools Admin and Ors. reported
in (2021) SCC OnLine 119 has held as
under:-

 "4. We have heard the learned
Additional Solicitor General for some time
and must note that the only error which
seems to have occurred in the impugned
order [Union of Indiav.Central Tibetan
Schools Admn., 2018 SCC OnLine Del
13371] is of noticing that it is not an
illiterate litigant because the manner in
which the Government is prosecuting its
appeal reflects nothing better! The mighty
Government of India is manned with a
large Legal Department having numerous
officers and advocates. The excuse given
for the delay is, to say the least,
preposterous.

5. We have repeatedly been
counselling through our orders various
Government
Departments,
State
Governments and other public authorities
that they must learn to file appeals in time
and set their house in order so far as the
Legal Department is concerned, more so as
technology assists them. This appears to be
falling on deaf ears despite costs having
been imposed in a number of matters with
the direction to recover it from the officers
responsible for the delay as we are of the
view that these officers must be made
accountable. It has not had any salutary
effect and that the present matter should
have been brought up, really takes the
cake!

6. The aforesaid itself shows the
casual manner in which the petitioner has
approached this Court without any cogent
or plausible ground for condonation of
delay. In fact, other than the lethargy and
incompetence of the petitioner, there is
nothing which has been put on record. We
have
repeatedly
discouraged
State
Governments and public authorities in
adopting an approach that they can walk in
to the Supreme Court as and when they
please ignoring the period of limitation
prescribed by the statutes, as if the
Limitation statute does not apply to them.
In this behalf, suffice to refer to our
judgment inState of M.P.v.Bherulal[State of
M.P.v.Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 :
(2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 101 : (2021) 1 SCC
(Cri) 117 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 84]
andState
of
Odishav.Sunanda
Mahakuda[State
of
Odishav.Sunanda
Mahakuda, (2021) 11 SCC 560] . The
leeway
which
was
given
to
the
Government/public authorities on account
of innate inefficiencies was the result of
certain orders of this Court which came at
a time when technology had not advanced
and thus, greater indulgence was shown.
This position is no more prevalent and the
current legal position has been elucidated
by the judgment of this Court inPostmaster
Generalv.Living
Media
(India)
Ltd.[Postmaster Generalv.Living Media
(India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2
SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 :
(2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649] Despite this,
there seems to be a little change in the
approach of the Government and public
authorities.

7. We have also categorised such
kind of cases as "certificate cases" filed
with the only object to obtain a quietus
from the Supreme Court on the ground that
nothing could be done because the highest
Court has dismissed the appeal. The
objective is to complete a mere formality
and save the skin of the officers who may
be in default in following the due process
or may have done it deliberately. We have
3 All. Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mithlesh & Ors.
27
deprecated such practice and process and
we do so again. We refuse to grant such
certificates and if the Government/public
authorities suffer losses, it is time when
officers concerned responsible for the
same, bear the consequences. The irony,
emphasised by us repeatedly, is that no
action is ever taken against the officers and
if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is
all that happens.

8.
Looking
to
the
gross
negligence and the impunity with which the
Union of India had approached this Court
in a matter like this, we consider it
appropriate to impose special costs of Rs 1
lakh in this case to be recovered from the
officer(s) concerned, to be deposited with
the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Welfare Fund within four weeks.

9. The special leave petitions are
dismissed
as
time-barred
in
terms
aforesaid. Pending application
stands
disposed of."

10. Incidentally, the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Central Tibetan
Schools (supra) is a judgment by three
Hon'ble Judges.

11. The Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs.
Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd.
reported in (2022) 3 SCC 159 has held as
under:-

"2. This is one more case of what
we have already categorised as "certificate
cases" and we do not delve further, as the
purpose seems just to bring the matter to
the Courts to put a closure to the same
without giving any cogent explanation for
condonation
of
delay
in
terms
of
Postmaster Generalv. Living Media (India)
Ltd. [Postmaster Generalv.Living Media
(India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2
SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 :
(2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649].

3. We have also examined the
case on merits despite the aforesaid and
find that a correct view has been taken by
the Tribunal as the Department itself is
treating the assessee in the same manner
for subsequent years so far as classification
is concerned.

4. We are thus of the view that for
both the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is
not liable to be entertained. The appeal is
dismissed accordingly."

12. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pathupati Subba
Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. vs. The
Special Deputy Collector (LA) [2024] 4
S.C.R. 241 has held as under:-

 "16. Generally, the courts have
adopted a very liberal approach in
construing the phrase 'sufficient cause'
used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in
order to condone the delay to enable the
courts to do substantial justice and to apply
law in a meaningful manner which
subserves the ends of justice. In Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs.
Katiji and Ors.2, this Court in advocating
the liberal approach in condoning the
delay for 'sufficient cause' held that
ordinarily a litigant does not stand to
benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not
necessary to explain every day's delay in
filing the appeal; and since sometimes
refusal to condone delay may result in
throwing out a meritorious matter, it is
necessary in the interest of justice that
cause of substantial justice should be
allowed
to
prevail
upon
technical
considerations and if the delay is not
deliberate, it ought to be condoned.
Notwithstanding the above, howsoever,
liberal approach is adopted in condoning
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for
not filing the appeal in time, is a condition
precedent for exercising the discretionary
power to condone the delay. The phrases
liberal
approach,
justice-oriented
approach and cause for the advancement of
'substantial fustice cannot be employed to
defeat the law of limitation so as to allow
stale matters or as a matter of fact dead
matters to be revived and re-opened by
taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation.
Act.

17. It must always be borne in
mind that while construing 'sufficient
cause' in deciding application under
Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of
the period of limitation prescribed for filing
an appeal, substantive right in favour of a
decree-holder accrues and this right ought
not to be lightly disturbed. The decreeholder treats the decree to be binding with
the lapse of time and may proceed on such
assumption creating new rights.

18. This Court as far back in
1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And
Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd has
emphasized that even after sufficient cause
has been shown by a party for not filing an
appeal within time, the said party is not
entitled to the condonation of delay as
excusing the delay is the discretionary
jurisdiction vested with the court. The
court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient
cause' for various reasons, may refuse to
condone the delay depending upon the
bona fides of the party."

13. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Ramkumar
Choudhary
reported in 2024 INSC 932 has held as
under:-

"5. The legal position is that
where a case has been presented in the
Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has
to explain the Court as to what was the
"sufficient
cause"
which
means
an
adequate
and
enough
reason
which
prevented him to approach the Court
within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v.
Reddy Sridevi, it was held by this Court
that even though limitation may harshly
affect the rights of a party, it has to be
applied with all its rigour when prescribed
by statute. A reference was also made to
the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v.
Pyare Ram wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer ((2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting
an application for condonation of delay for
lack of sufficient cause has concluded in
Paragraph 15 as follows:

"15. The law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that where a case
has been presented in the court beyond
limitation, the applicant has to explain the
court as to what was the "sufficient cause"
which means an adequate and enough
reason which prevented him to approach
the court within limitation. In case a party
is found to be negligent, or for want of
bona fide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have
not acted diligently or remained inactive,
there cannot be a justified ground to
condone the delay. No court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate
delay
by
imposing
any
condition
whatsoever. The application is to be
decided only within the parameters laid
down by this Court in regard to the
condonation of delay. In case there was no
sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the court on time condoning the
delay without any justification, putting any
condition whatsoever, amounts to passing
an order in violation of the statutory
provisions and it tantamounts to showing
utter disregard to the legislature."
3 All. Dig UP Police Headquarters Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Smt. Mithlesh & Ors.
29

14. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that the High Court did
not commit any mistake in dismissing the
delay condonation application of the
present appellant."

Thus, it is crystal clear that the
discretion to condone the delay has to be
exercised judiciously based on facts and
circumstances of each case and that, the
expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be
liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction
or lack of bona fides is attributed to the
party.

5.1. In Union of India v. Jahangir
Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal
heir (2024) SCC OnLine SC 489 wherein,
one of us (J.B.Pardiwala, J) was a member,
after referring to various decisions on the
issue, it was in unequivocal terms observed
by this Court that delay should not be
excused as a matter of generosity and
rendering substantial justice is not to cause
prejudice to the opposite party. The
relevant passage of the same is profitably
extracted below:

"24.
In
the
aforesaid
circumstances, we made it very clear that
we are not going to look into the merits of
the matter as long as we are not convinced
that sufficient cause has been made out for
condonation of such a long and inordinate
delay.

25. It hardly matters whether a
litigant is a private party or a State or
Union of India when it comes to condoning
the gross delay of more than 12 years. If
the litigant chooses to approach the court
long after the lapse of the time prescribed
under the relevant provisions of the law,
then he cannot turn around and say that no
prejudice would be caused to either side by
the delay being condoned. This litigation
between the parties started sometime in
1981. We are in 2024. Almost 43 years
have elapsed. However, till date the
respondent has not been able to reap the
fruits of his decree. It would be a mockery
of justice if we condone the delay of 12
years and 158 days and once again ask the
respondent to undergo the rigmarole of the
legal proceedings.

26. The length of the delay is a
relevant matter which the court must take
into
consideration
while
considering
whether the delay should be condoned or
not. From the tenor of the approach of the
appellants, it appears that they want to fix
their own period of limitation for instituting
the proceedings for which law has
prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is
held that a party has lost his right to have
the matter considered on merits because of
his own inaction for a long, it cannot be
presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in
such circumstances of the case, he cannot
be heard to plead that the substantial
justice deserves to be preferred as against
the
technical
considerations.
While
considering the plea for condonation of
delay, the court must not start with the
merits of the main matter. The court owes a
duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the
explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation. It is only if the sufficient
cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally
balanced that the court may bring into aid
the merits of the matter for the purpose of
condoning the delay.

27. We are of the view that the
question of limitation is not merely a
technical consideration. The rules of
limitation are based on the principles of
sound public policy and principles of
equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of
Damocles' hanging over the head of the
respondent for indefinite period of time to
be determined at the whims and fancies of
the appellants.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

xxx
 xxx

 xxx

34. In view of the aforesaid, we
have reached to the conclusion that the
High Court committed no error much less
any error of law in passing the impugned
order. Even otherwise, the High Court was
exercising
its
supervisory
jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.

35. In a plethora of decisions of
this Court, it has been said that delay
should not be excused as a matter of
generosity. Rendering substantial justice is
not to cause prejudice to the opposite
party. The appellants have failed to prove
that they were reasonably diligent in
prosecuting the matter and this vital test for
condoning the delay is not satisfied in this
case.

36. For all the foregoing reasons,
this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs."

Applying
the
above
legal
proposition to the facts of the present case,
we are of the opinion that the High Court
correctly refused to condone the delay and
dismissed the appeal by observing that
such inordinate delay was not explained
satisfactorily, no sufficient cause was
shown for the same, and no plausible
reason was put forth by the State.
Therefore, we are inclined to reject this
petition at the threshold."

14. In the aforesaid judgments, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been of the
view that where a case has been presented
in the Court beyond limitation, the person
has to explain the Court as to what was the
"sufficient cause" which means an adequate
and enough reason which prevented him to
approach the Court within limitation.
Though limitation may harshly affect the
rights of a party, it has to be applied with
all rigour when prescribed by statute.

15. In the instant case, as already
indicated above, there has been a casual,
cavalier and lackadaisical approach on the
part of the appellants all along inasmuch as,
it has taken the State almost ten months to
take a decision for filing of the appeal and
despite the appeal having been allegedly
prepared, it took the pairokar eleven
months to realize that the appeal has not
been filed. This is sheer negligence on the
part of the appellants and thus, the grounds,
as taken in the applications for condonation
of delay, do not inspire confidence and
consequently,
the
applications
for
condonation of delay merit to be rejected
and are accordingly, rejected.

(Order on the Memo of Revision)

16. Since the applications for
condonation of delay have been rejected,
the revision also stands dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 30
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 182 of 2023

TATA AIG General Insurance Company
Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Aman Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Deepak Kumar Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arunendra Nath Mishra, Praveen Chandra