HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5026 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assails the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court, No. 10, Lucknow in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2023 (Mithilesh Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Markandey Tiwari & Others) whereby in a mix civil appeal under Order 43(1) (r) filed along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 1028 of 2023 and in the said matter, the court concerned while exercising its discretion positively has condoned a delay of about 3 months in filing the said appeal. 3. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the court concerned has passed the order in a mechanical manner and there has been no satisfaction recorded regarding the ground of sufficiency of cause in condoning the delay. 4. It has further been urged that the court has merely re-produced the averments made in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and thereafter has reproduced the objections filed by the petitioner and in a cursory manner without dealing with the same has condoned the delay which is not in appropriate exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sridhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Markandey Tiwari And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Addl. District And Session Judge Court No. 10 Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) two decisions of the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Another; 1997 (7) SCC 556 and Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer; 2013 (14) SCC 81. 6. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. 7. At the outset, it may be noticed that in so far as the order passed by the Appellate Court is concerned, it no doubt has reproduced the contentions as well as the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the objections filed by the petitioner and it may be true to some extent that the reasoning is not very well reflected from the order but at the same time what is important to note is that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction. Moreover, it is not in all cases, as a matter of cause, that whenever there is any right infringement of law or procedure, this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rather it must be shown that the order impugned suffers from the vice of jurisdictional error or violates the basic postulates of natural justice or inter alia if allowed to stand would occasion to failure of justice. 8. Keeping the aforesaid proposition in mind, the Court has considered the application filed by the respondents in support of their contention seeking condonation of delay which has attributed latches to the Members of the Bar for abstaining from judicial work and grounds of illness of the respondent. 9. Considering the decisions of the Apex Court in Ram Nath Sahu and Others v. Gobardhan Sao and others; (2002) 3 SCC 195, Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others; (2013) 12 SCC 649; N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Kumari Sahu v. Bhubanananda Sahu & Others; MANU/SCOR/1950/2025, the proposition which is culled out that as far as possible, the matters must be decided on merits and technicalities should not overshadow substantiated justice and for that purpose the cause shown should generally be accepted and refused should be the exception and while considering the delay it must also be seen that the conduct of the party should not be blameworthy contributing to the delay or that the cause shown is affected by malafides. 10. In light of the material on record, it cannot be said that the respondent A227 No. 5026 of 2025 2 was guilty of any negligence or that the cause shown was accerated with malafides or that there appears to be deliberate delay or the cause shown of illness and abstention of judicial work by the members of the bar, as pleaded, was false where a Court has exercised its jurisdiction in a positive manner then this Court in exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will be slow to overturn the same. The Court is satisfied that the grounds shown for seeking condonation of delay appears to be sufficient. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find this matter to be a fit case for exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. August 26, 2025 Asheesh A227 No. 5026 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench