Allahabad High Court
MANOJ KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSMT. SHEELA DEVI
- Decided
- Bench
- Y K SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The delay condonation application was rejected for want of prosecution.
Summary
Manoj Kumar and another filed a revision seeking condonation of delay in a pending matter. The revision was listed but the revisionists failed to appear before the court. The opposite party, represented by Rahul Sahai, was present. The court held that the delay condonation application could not be entertained due to lack of prosecution. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay condonation application can be entertained when the applicant fails to appear before the court
Subjects
- delay condonation
- revision
- civil procedure
- prosecution
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 232 of 2016
Manoj Kumar And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Smt. Sheela Devi
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raj Kumar Vaishya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : , Rahul Sahai
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
(Re: Delay Condonation Application No.364924 of 2016)
Case called out in the revised list.
None appears for the applicant-revisionists to press the application.
Sri Gaurav Varshney, holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party is present.
Delay condonation application is, accordingly, rejected for want of
prosecution.
Consequently, the revision stands dismissed.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
September 15, 2026
RKK/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…