Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 168518 (ALL)

RAJEEV KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. COMMISSIONER AND SECY. BOARD OF REVENUE LKO. U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CMRAD/210/2024 · 2025-01-16

Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 9 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 210 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko. U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Naresh Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. This case has been listed under Chapter 12 Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules on the request sent by the Office that the order dated 27.11.2024 has not been complied with. 2. Sri Zafar Aziz, who appears for the New India Assurance Company says that he has been served a copy of the Review Application and necessary paper(s) today itself in the Court and he does not have any objections, after going through the papers and to the prayer made in the review application. (Order on C.M.Application No. 1 of 2024) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. 2. The delay reported by the Office is of 03 days. 3. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. We find that the reasons are sufficient. 4. Sri Zafar Aziz has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 6. The Office is directed to assign regular number to this review application. (Order on Review Application) 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it was inadvertently argued before this Court that the District Magistrate had to consider the application of the applicant, actually the District Magistrate had sent the papers to the Insurance Company to consider the application of the claimant. 2. Having gone through the order dated 10.09.2024 and the prayer made in this Review application, we of the opinion that the order dated 10.09.2024 can be modified and is, therefore, being modified to the extent that the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with provisions of the Yojna within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if not decided earlier. 3. The review application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Arvind Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench