Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75978-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 51 of 2025 Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Opposite Party :- Life Insurance Corporation And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gulab Chandra,Rupesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Puneet Khare holding brief of Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Divya Chaurasia, appearing for the respondents-LIC. 2. From perusal of the record it is found that the review application has been presented with the delay of 38 days for which an application supported by an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed. 3. Cause shown for the delay in filing the review application is sufficient. 4. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. We have gone through the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by us, review whereof is being sought. We have also gone through the grounds taken in the review application. The grounds that are quoted in the order 29.11.2024 are not being disputed, however it is being asserted that the reasons for the delay in preferring appeal were further explained in paragraphs-4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the supplementary affidavit which have not been considered. 6. During course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant sought to contend that the applicant was in touch of his counsel, and he was being informed that the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.07.2009. 7. The ground no.4 taken in the review application is quoted as under:- "IV. Because, after that original counsel Sri A.S. Diwekar, Advocate the appellant on enquiry was informed that the writ petition was dismissed in default on 14.07.2009 then that after restoration application was preferred with delay condonation application on 22.09.2022. Subsequently the appellant was further informed that the records of writ petition were missing in scanning centre, hence reconstruction application preferred ultimately office report dated 13.09.2023 first time came into knowledge of petitioner regarding dismissal of writ petition itself on 20.07.2009 then that after manual certified copy of order was obtained and restoration application was withdraw with liberty to prefer Special Appeal on 22.08.2024. The appellant, after 22.08.2024 preferred Special Appeal within time. While passing the impugned ex parte order the abovenoted relevant facts happen omitted from being considered. Such error is apparent error on the face of record." 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid ground would clearly disclose that it is being said that the petitioner was under impression that the petition was dismissed in default on 14.07.2009 but he preferred the restoration application alongwith the delay condonation application on 22.09.2022. It is therefore clear that the restoration application was preferred after a considerable delay of more than 13 years of passing of the order on 14.07.2009. 9. It is additionally argued that writ petition was in fact dismissed on merits and was not dismissed in default on 14.07.2009. This further reflects that the petitioner was not even aware of this fact and was negligent in pursuing his right even during pendency of the writ petition. 10. We are of the opinion that in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application in the special appeal, there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 15 years. Furthermore, even when the special appeal was taken up alongwith the delay condonation application, no one appeared to press the said application, and the same was rejected in the absence of counsel for the appellant. 11. Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to review our order dated 29.11.2024 and restore the special appeal on its original number. 12. The grounds taken in the review application do not fall within the parameters on which the review of an order can be considered. 13. Accordingly, the review application is rejected. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Shahroz (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (V.K. Birla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad