Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 126095 (ALL)

LALTA PRASAD v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD DISTRICT FAIZABAD U.P. AND 9 OTHERS

CMRAD/36/2025 · 2025-03-03

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12719 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 36 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalta Prasad Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Faizabad District Faizabad U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shitla Prasad Tripathi Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shitla Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant. 2. Present review application has been preferred by the petitioner in Writ B No. 2707 of 1983 (Ram Chet and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and others). 3. Registry has recorded that there is delay of 284 days in filing the present review application. 4. Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that though there has been some delay in filing the present review application but strictly speaking there is no limitation prescribed for filing of review of judgment and order passed under Article 226 of Constitution of India but does not oppose the liberty that the court can certainly look into the aspect of delay and laches in filing the said application. 5. With regard to the delay in filing the present review application, it is noticed that in Para No. 2 of the affidavit filed by the application in support of condonation of delay, it has been stated that deponent is suffering from some disease and insufficient fund so deponent could not file the review application within time. 6. It is noticed that neither nature of disease has been given nor any documents annexed indicating the disease and it seems that there is no reason for the delay in filing the review application. Apart from the above, this Court has noticed that the applicant has sought to re-agitate the contents of the writ petition again by filing present review application. 7. The statement of Ram Kumar was duly dealt with by this court while dismissing the writ petition and the petitioner seeks to re-argue and reinterpret the said statement. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record necessitating review of the judgment and order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Writ B No. 2707 of 1983 apart from which rehearing is not permissible on filing an application of review. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the application for review is rejected. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench