Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19867 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3139 of 2025 Petitioner :- Parmanand Srivastava And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh,Anuj Kumar Gupta,Shri Kishan Prajapati Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2003 passed by Opposite Party No.2 in the Restoration Application No.40/43/2001 'Permanand vs. Vasudev & Ors.'. 3. The facts that appear from record are that an order came to be passed against the petitioner in the appellate proceedings whereby directions were issued for execution of a registered instrument. The said order was passed on 24.09.2001. Challenging the said order, the petitioner took two steps: firstly, filing an application for recall or the said order and secondly, a writ petition was also preferred before this Court being Writ Petition No.1107 of 2002 (MS). Subsequently, the restoration application came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2003. After the dismissal of the application, the petitioner did not press Writ Petition No.1107 of 2002 (MS) and moved an application numbered as 648 of 2004 that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. In view of the said application, the writ petition came to be dismissed on 22.01.2004. The petitioner thereafter never preferred any writ petition or took any remedy against the order dated 24.07.2003 and has preferred the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 24.07.2003. 4. For explaining the delay in approaching this Court, a supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court, which is taken on record, to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from poor health. In support of the said, prescriptions of the year 2005, 2008 as well as of the year 2022 have been filed. 5. The said prescriptions are not enough to condone the inordinate laches in approaching this Court, of about more than 22 years. There is no explanation as to why proper course could not be adopted by the petitioners after dismissal of writ petition on 22.01.2004 and till the time he contacted the illness for the first time which is some time in the year 2005. 6. Present petition is filed by inordinate laches which cannot be condoned, as such, it is dismissed on the ground of laches. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench