# State Of U.P. & Anr v. Mohan Lal

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 99 of 2025
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari, Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-mohan-lal-52813
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

12 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
149
custody do not exist. The order passed by
the Child Welfare Committee has been
passed mechanically and without any
application of mind. The order dated
30.07.2025 is without jurisdiction and
nullity. The detention of the petitioner in
Government
Children
Home
(Girls),
Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is without
jurisdiction.

There is no other document on record
except the medical report, to determine the
age of the corpus. The medical test
determining the age of petitioner no.1
indicates that the age of corpus, i.e.,
petitioner no. 1 is 18 years or above and is,
therefore, not a child as defined in Section
2(12) of Act, 2015. The Child Welfare
Committee has no jurisdiction to take the
corpus, i.e., petitioner no. 1 under its care
and protection or keep her in Government
Children's Home or anywhere else. The
detention of corpus, i.e., petitioner no. 1 in
Rajkiya Balgrih (Balika), Swaroop Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar is without jurisdiction.

For the aforesaid reasons, a writ of
Habeas Corpus is to be issued to release
Smt. Rohini, corpus, i.e., petitioner no. 1.
Consequently, a writ of Habeas Corpus is
issued
directing
the
Superintendent,
Government
Children
Home
(Girls),
Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and the
Chairman,
Child
Welfare
Committee,
Kannauj to release forthwith Smt. Rohini,
petitioner no.1. The corpus, i.e., the
petitioner no. 1 is free to go wherever she
likes and to stay with whomsoever she
wants including the petitioner no. 2.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is
allowed.

A copy of this order be communicated
for
necessary
compliance
to
the
Superintendent,
Government
Children
Home (Girls), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar and the Chairman, Child Welfare
Committee, Kannauj by the Registrar
(Compliance) within one week.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 99
of 2025

State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
Mohan Lal ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether the explanation given by the Review
Petitioners-State
for
such
huge
delay
in
preferring this Review Petition is satisfactory?

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section
114
&
Order
XLVII;
The
Limitation
Act,1963-Section 5- Delay of 5743 days in
filing the review application from the date
of judgment under review- Judgment
under review was earlier challenged by
the State of U.P. by filing Special Leave
Petition (C) No.25032 of 2014 with a
delay of 1633 days and the same was
dismissed on the ground of delay as well
as on merit by Hon'ble Supreme Court-
Whether litigants is a private party or
State or Union of India when it comes to
condoning the gross delay of several
years. The government bodies and their
agencies should be vigilant in filing the
petition within time. There is no need to
accept the usual explanation that the
petition was kept pending for several
years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in the process. The
government agencies are under a special
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 should not be
swirled for the benefit of the Government
Department-
Delay
Condonation
application rejected and review petition
dismissed. (E-15)

Held-Application seeking condonation of delay
reflects proverbial bureaucratic red tapism
wherein
the
Review
Petitioners-State
has
attempted to take shelter in the usual
functioning of the administrative machinery.
(Para 8 & 21)

Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy
(D) through his legal heir, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 489; Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram,
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 92; Majji
Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi , reported in 2021
SCC Online SC 1260; Maniben Devraj Shah Vs.
Municipal
Corporation
of
Brihan
Mumbai,
reported in [2012 (5) SCC 157]; Pundlik Jalam
Patil (dead) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project and Another reported in
(2008) 17 SCC 448; Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai
Baburao Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and
others, reported in [JT 2001(5) SC 608]; State
of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal,
reported in [(2020) 10 SCC 654]; Balwant Singh
(Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors, reported in
[AIR 2010 SC 3043]; Office of the Chief Post
Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India
Ltd. & Anr., reported in [(2012) 3 SCC 563];
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).
19846/2020, Union of India vs. Central Tibetan
Schools Admin & Ors.;

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The
Limitation Act, 1963

List of Keywords
Review application; Delay; Litigant whether
State or Private; vigilant in filing petition on
time; Condonation of delay is an exception;
should not be used as an anticipated benefit for
the Government Departments
Case Arising From
Review application, seeking review of the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2009 passed
by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.34974 of
2001 (Mohan Lal vs. State of U.P. and Another),
whereby the writ petition was allowed in favour
of the petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohan Srivastava,
S.C.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Santosh Kumar
Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Singh, J.)

Re: Delay Condonation Application
No.1 of 2025 in Civil Misc. Review
Petition

1. Heard Shri Mohan Srivastava,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
Applicants and Shri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Santosh
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
opposite party.

2.
By
means
of
this
review
application, the State of U.P. seeks review
of the judgment and order dated 13.11.2009
passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C)
No.34974 of 2001 (Mohan Lal vs. State of
U.P. and Another), whereby the writ
petition was allowed in favour of the
petitioner.

3. There is a delay of 5743 days in
filing the review application from the date
of judgment under review herein.

4. The judgment and order dated
13.11.2009, which is under review before
us, was earlier challenged by the State of
U.P. by filing Special Leave Petition (C)
No.25032 of 2014 with a delay of 1633
days and the same was dismissed on the
12 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
151
ground of delay as well as on merit by
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
03.05.2024. Thus, from the date, Special
Leave Petition was dismissed, there is a
delay of about 489 days in preferring the
Review Petition. The Writ (C) No.34974 of
2009 was filed by Mohan Lal against State
of U.P. wherein it was prayed that a Writ of
Mandamus
be
issued
against
the
Respondents and direct the Respondent
no.2 to omit the name of State of Uttar
Pradesh from the revenue records and
mutate the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records in place of State of Uttar
Pradesh. After hearing both sides, this
Court allowed the Writ Petition vide
judgment and order dated 13.11.2009 and it
was held that the petitioner was entitled to
the benefit of Section 3 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
(in short 'Repeal Act') and his land shall not
be treated to have been declared as vacant
land under the Repeal Act.

5. As noted above against the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2009,
which is under challenge in the Review
Petition, the State of U.P. had filed Special
Leave Petition No.25032 of 2014,
which was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
vide
order
dated
03.05.2024 and the case on merit was
also considered in paragraph 2.2 of the
order dated 03.05.2024, however, in
operative part of aforesaid order, the
huge delay of 1633 days in filing the
petition was not condoned by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court further observed that to
explain the delay in filing the petition,
only plea taken by the State was that the
matter was entrusted to the counsel and
the same reasoning cannot be accepted.
The case was not followed up at any
stage.

6. In the affidavit filed by the Review
Petitioners-State, certain explanation has
been given for such huge delay in
preferring this Review Petition. However,
on consideration of the averments made in
the application seeking condonation of
delay and the affidavit filed in support
thereof, what we find is that the delay has
not been satisfactorily explained, rather in
the facts of the case what we conclude is
that there has been unjustifiable laches and
callousness on the part of the State in
preferring this Review Petition. It has been
stated
in
the
application
seeking
condonation of delay that the order dated
13.11.2009, which is under review, was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition No.25032
of 2014, which was dismissed on the
ground of delay by the Hon'ble Apex Court
vide order dated 03.05.2024. It has not
been made clear by the Review PetitionersState as to what prevented them to file the
Review Petition after 13.11.2009 and
before
filing
Special
Leave
Petition
No.25032 of 2014. It has also been stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the
application seeking condonation of delay
that once the Special Leave Petition
No.25032 of 2014 was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
03.05.2024, the petitioner Mohan Lal
submitted application dated 05.07.2024 for
compliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court
dated 03.05.2024 and the High Court dated
13.11.2009 for recording his name in the
revenue
records
and
thereafter
on
16.07.2024 a proposal was sent to the State
Government for filing Review Petition.
Thereafter, an Office Memo No.230, dated
22.08.2024 was prepared and the same was
sent to the Advocate on Record of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and Advocate on
Record has sent his legal opinion which
was received on 22.03.2025. Thereafter, the
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petitioners-State decided to file Review
Petition and a meeting was invited for
discussing the further steps to be taken in
the matter and permission was granted for
filing Review Petition on 26.07.2025.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the
Petitioners-State taking the Court to the
aforementioned submissions made in the
affidavit filed in support of the application
seeking condonation of delay has submitted
that delay is genuine, bonafide and
unintentional. He has further submitted that
Review Petition could not be filed as it
took time in completing the administrative
formalities by following certain norms and
procedures and once they get legal opinion
from Advocate on Record, it was decided
in the meeting that the Review Petition
would be filed and permission was granted
on 26.07.2025 for filing the Review
Petition against the order of this Court
dated 13.11.2009.

8. We have given our conscious
consideration to the submissions made by
the learned Standing Counsel, however,
what we find is that the delay and laches in
preferring the Review Petition are not
satisfactorily explained. The reasons as
argued by the learned Standing Counsel
rather are, in fact, manifestation of
callousness and non-seriousness on the part
of the officials and officers of the State
Government. What has been stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the application
seeking condonation of delay reflects
proverbial bureaucratic red tapism wherein
the Review Petitioners-State has attempted
to take shelter in the usual functioning of
the administrative machinery.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time
and again has not only expressed words of
caution in respect of casual manner in
which the State Authorities approach the
Courts without any plausible ground for
condonation of delay but has even
counselled the State Authorities in this
regard. Regard may be had at this juncture
to the pronouncement made by Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 04.02.2021 while
dismissing the Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s). 19846/2020, Union of
India vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin
& Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed the Special Leave Petition,
which was preferred with the delay of 532
days from the date of rejection of
restoration application and 6616 days from
the date of original order and made certain
observations are quoted below:

"We
have
heard
learned
Additional Solicitor General for some time
and must note that the only error which
seems to have occurred in the impugned
order 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 large
legal department having numerous officers
and Advocates. The excuse given for the
delay is, to say the least, preposterous.

We
have
repeatedly
being
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 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
12 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
153
effect and that the present matter should
have been brought up, really takes the
cake!"

10. In the case of Central Tibetan
Schools Admin & Ors. (supra) while
observing that the appellant therein had
approached the Court in casual manner
without any cogent ground for condonation
of delay, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
referred to the cases of Office of the Chief
Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living
Media India Ltd. & Anr., reported in
[(2012) 3 SCC 563] and also the case of
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh
& Ors, reported in [AIR 2010 SC 3043].
Relevant extract of the said judgment in the
case of Central Tibetan Schools Admin
& Ors. (supra) runs as under:

" In this behalf, suffice to refer to
our judgment in the State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. v. Bheru Lal [SLP [C]
Diary
No.9217/2020
decided
on
15.10.2020] and The State of Odisha &
Ors. v. Sunanda Mahakuda [SLP [C] Diary
No.22605/2020 decided on 11.01.2021].
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 in Office of
the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs.
Living Media India Ltd & Anr.- (2012) 3
SCC 563. Despite this, there seems to be a
little change in the approach of the
Government and public authorities. "

11. In the case of Living Media India
Ltd. & Anr. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme
Court noticed the advancement in modern
technology and observed that the claim of
seeking condonation of delay 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. In the said case, it was further
observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that all
the government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities need to be informed that
unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for delay, there is no need to
accept usual explanation that the file was
kept pending for several months/years due
to considerable degree of procedural red
tape in the process.

12. Paras 28 and 29 of the judgement
in the case of Living Media India Ltd. &
Anr. (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:

"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
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few."

13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
and others vs. Bherulal, reported in
[(2020) 10 SCC 654] has held that the law
of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody
including the Government and unless the
government authorities, their agencies and
instrumentalities
have
reasonable
and
acceptable explanations for the delay and
there was bona fide efforts on their part,
there is no need to accept the usual
explanation in the garb of procedural red
tape of process. The condonation of delay
is an exception and should not be used as
anticipated benefits for the Government.

14. In Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai
Baburao Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil
and others, reported in [JT 2001(5) SC
608] the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that
under Section 5 of Act, 1963 it should
adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction
must be made between a case where the
delay is inordinate and a case where the
delay is of a few days. In the former case
consideration of prejudice to the other
side will be a relevant factor so the case
calls for a more cautious approach but in
the latter case no such consideration may
arise and such a case deserves a liberal
approach. No hard and fast rule can be
laid down in this regard and the basic
guiding
factor
is
advancement
of
substantial justice.

15. In Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead)
by
LRs
Vs.
Executive
Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project and Another
reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448, in para
17 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court said :

"...The
evidence
on
record
suggests neglect of its own right for long
time in preferring appeals. The court
cannot enquire into belated and state
claims on the ground of equity. Delay
defeats equity. The court helps those who
are vigilant and "do not slumber over their
rights."

16. In Maniben Devraj Shah Vs.
Municipal
Corporation
of
Brihan
Mumbai, reported in [2012 (5) SCC 157],
in para 18 of the judgment, the Court said
as under:

"What needs to be emphasised is
that even though a liberal and justice
oriented approach is required to be
adopted in the exercise of power under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other
similar statutes, the Courts can neither
become oblivious of the fact that the
successful litigant has acquired certain
rights on the basis of the judgment under
challenge and a lot of time is consumed at
various stages of litigation apart from the
cost. What colour the expression 'sufficient
cause' would get in the factual matrix of a
given case would largely depend on bona
fide nature of the explanation. If the Court
finds that there has been no negligence on
the part of the applicant and the cause
shown for the delay does not lack bona
fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on
the other hand, the explanation given by
12 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
155
the applicant is found to be concocted or he
is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his
cause, then it would be a legitimate
exercise of discretion not to condone the
delay. In cases involving the State and its
agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can
take note of the fact that sufficient time is
taken in the decision making process but no
premium can be given for total lethargy or
utter negligence on the part of the officers
of
the
State
and
/
or
its
agencies/instrumentalities
and
the
applications filed by them for condonation
of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of
course by accepting the plea that dismissal
of the matter on the ground of bar of
limitation will cause injury to the public
interest."

17. 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 ,
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it
was held by Hon'ble Supreme 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 92 wherein, it was
held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, reported in (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."

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."

18. 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.

19. In Union of India v. Jahangir
Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
heir, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
489, wherein, after referring to various
decisions on the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed 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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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
12 All. State Of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal
157
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."

20. In Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy
(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
further observed as under:-

"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."

21. Coming back to the facts of the
present case, we would observe that it
hardly matters whether litigants is a private
party or State or Union of India when it
comes to condoning the gross delay of
several years. The government bodies and
their agencies should be vigilant in filing
the petition within time. There is no need to
accept the usual explanation that the
petition was kept pending for several years
due to considerable degree of procedural
redtape in the process. The government
agencies 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 should not be
swirled for the benefit of the Government
Department. In plethora of judgments of this
Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court it
has been held that the delay should not be
condoned as a matter of generosity. When we
examine the explanation of delay of 5743
days in filing the Review Petition from the
date of judgment dated 13.11.2009, which
has been sought to be reviewed and delay of
around 489 days from the date of dismissal
of Special Leave Petition on 03.05.2024,
what we find is that the State has once
again sought shelter in usual slow pace of
State machinery in preparation of office
notes, movement of files, keeping legal
opinion with delay. The said explanation
cannot be said to be sufficient in view of
the law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases mentioned hereinabove. In fact the
course adopted by the State in preferring
the
Review
Petition
reflects
gross
negligence and inaction which is in our
considered opinion cannot be said to be
bonafide. What we notice is that the
approach of the State all along has been
casual and that of manifest negligence. As
observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment mentioned hereinabove, the law
of limitation binds everyone including the
Government.

22. From the date of judgment of this
Court on 13.11.2009 till dismissal of Special
Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court on
the ground of delay of 1633 days, the same
period cannot be reconsidered by this Court
for condoning the delay. From the date of
dismissal of Special Leave Petition i.e. on
03.05.2024 till 26.07.2025 when it was
decided by the State Government to file the
Review Petition, the reasons indicating the
delay for that period is not a satisfactory
explanation for delay in filing this Review
Petition.
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Considering the fact that the State
has grossly failed to offer any proper
explanation for huge delay other than
mentioning different dates on which office
notes were prepared and files have been
moving from one desk to other and from
one officer to other, in our opinion, the
explanation furnished are neither sufficient
nor acceptable to condone such a huge
delay.

24. We have observed that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has considered the merit of
the case while passing the order dated
03.05.2024 and therefore, by allowing this
Review Petition, we cannot review the
judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

25. In the light of the discussions
made hereinabove, the delay condonation
application is rejected.

26. Consequently, the Review Petition
is also dismissed as we have refused to
condone the delay in filing this Review
Petition.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 158
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 225 of 2025

Nagendra Sharma & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Transfer of case

Headnotes
Transfer of the restoration proceeding is sought-
conduct of the applicant to prefer the Family
Court for instituting the proceeding - thereafter
to make request for transfer of the subsequent
proceeding emanating from the same to the
Family Court -reflective of his ulterior motive to
cause delay in the proceeding-conduct reflective
of his ulterior.
Application dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure

List of Keywords
subsequent proceeding, ulterior motive to cause
delay

Appearances of parties
Counsel
for
Applicant(s)
:
Anurag
Singh
Chauhan, Ananya Singh Chauhan, Shameem
Jahan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Amrendra
Nath Tripathi, Vijay Nandan Mani Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for the Applicants; Sri
Abhishek
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel along
with Sri Mohammad Kaseem, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State-opposite party No. 1; and Sri
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Vijaya Nandan
Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2.

2. By means of the present Application
filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C., the
Applicants have prayed for the following
relief:

"(i) Stay the all proceedings
relating Miscellaneous Case No.52/2019,