Allahabad High Court
STATE OF UPversusVIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The State of U.P. filed an appeal against Vikram Singh and another, but the appeal was lodged 189 days after the decree, exceeding the prescribed period. The State sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, submitting an affidavit and arguing that there was no deliberate negligence. The Court examined the affidavit and noted that the grounds raised were stereotyped, citing Supreme Court decisions that discourage condoning delays on such bases. Consequently, the Court rejected the condonation application, held that the delay could not be excused, and dismissed the appeal. The order also rejected the application for leave to appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the entire appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 189 days in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the application for leave to appeal should be entertained after the condonation of delay is rejected.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- delay condonation
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- appeal
- Supreme Court precedent
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 325 of 2026
State of U.P.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Vikram Singh And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Patanjali Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
(Order on the Delay Condonation Application)-
1. Heard Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, the learned A.G.A. for
applicant/appellant-State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present appeal has been filed with delay. Accordingly, an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by applicant-appellant
seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
4. The Stamp reporter in his report has pointed out that there is a delay of
189 days in filing the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that there is no deliberate
negligence or laches on the part of applicant/appellant in filing the present
appeal with delay. The delay in filing the present appeal has been
sufficiently explained. Moreover, the cause shown for explaining the delay
in filing the present appeal is not only sufficient but also bona-fide. As such,
the delay in filing the present appeal stands sufficiently explained, therefore,
the delay in filing the present appeal is liable to be condoned by this Court.
6. Perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
7. Having heard the learned A.G.A.-Ist for applicant/appellant-State and
GOVAD No. 325 of 2026
2
upon perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation
application, we find that stereotyped grounds have been raised seeking
condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Apex Court in the case
of Postmaster General Vs. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 as
re-affirmed in Shivamma (dead) by Lrs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board
and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, such practice of condoning the
delay on stereotyped grounds have been deprecated by the Apex Court. In
view of above, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the present
appeal.
8. As a result, the delay condonation application fails and is liable to be
rejected.
9. It is, accordingly, rejected.
(Ref: Order on the Leave to Appeal)-
Since the delay condonation application has been rejected, therefore, the
application for leave to appeal is also rejected.
(Ref: Order on the memo of appeal)-
In view of above, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
September 30, 2026
Imtiyaz
Digitally signed by :-
IMTIYAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…