HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7185 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Maya Ram Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner . 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 02.09.2025 and 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.3, Gonda in Civil Misc. Case No.40 of 2022 whereby an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of about five days delay in filing an application for restoration of appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the restoration application was allowed by means of an order dated 24.09.2025. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and in the affidavit filed in support of the application for restoration of the appeal, the appellant had pleaded that her cousin Harish Chandra was doing pairvi of the appeal. As he did not do pairvi properly, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner did not file objections against the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the objections against the application filed under Order 41 Rule 9 CPC, he made averments regarding merits of the claim but he did not specifically deny the ground mentioned for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. The Appellate Court has recorded in the order dated 24.09.2025 that the original appellant has died and therefore, the opposite party has been substituted and replaced. She has stated that her cousin was doing pairvi and he did not perform his duty properly. It is also recorded in the order that the paper book of the case had gone missing and it was reconstituted under an order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the District Judge. Therefore, the original order dated 31.01.2002 is not available. It is also recorded in the order dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Maya Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shailendra Chaudhary And Another .....Petitioner(s) Sitapati And Another .....Respondent(s) 24.09.2025 that the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution at 11:55 AM whereas normally appeals are heard after 11:55 AM and the Court ought to have waited till after lunch hour. 4. I am of the view that the aforesaid reasons recorded by the Appellate Court in the impugned order make out a sufficient ground for condonation of delay and recall of the order dated 31.01.2002 and there is no error or illegality in the impugned order. 5. The petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. As the matter is quite old, a direction is issued to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Gonda to decide the Misc. Civil Case No.40 of 2002 titled Smt. Sitapati v. Kamala Prasad Chaudhary and Anr. expeditiously, in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates at short intervals. December 19, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 7185 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench