Allahabad High Court
RAJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court condoned the delay and set aside the cost order, partially allowing the appeal.
Summary
The appellant Raj Kumar filed an intra‑court appeal 300 days after the impugned order, seeking condonation of delay and reversal of costs imposed on the affidavit deponent and 74 petitioners. The court found the cause shown for the delay sufficient and condoned the 300‑day delay. It examined the cost order of Rs 1 lakh on the deponent and Rs 1,000 each on the petitioners and held that the award was excessively harsh. No interference was made on the merits of the underlying issue, but the court intervened to set aside the cost order. Consequently, the cost award was deleted and the appeal was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 300 days in filing the intra‑court appeal can be condoned.
- Whether the cost order of Rs 1 lakh on the deponent and Rs 1,000 each on the 74 petitioners is excessive and should be set aside.
Subjects
- cost of litigation
- cost condonation
- delay condonation
- intra‑court appeal
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 609 of 2026
Raj Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar, Pradeep
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Kaushalendra
Nath Singh
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2026
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the original
petitioner/appellant, Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
Greater NOIDA and Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 300 days.
3. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the present appeal is
condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
4. The present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the order dated
19.09.2025 passed by the learned single judge in Rajkumar And 74 Others
Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, 2025:AHC:168285.
5. At the outset, the appeal has been confined to cost of Rs. 1 lac imposed
on deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and Rs.
1,000/- on each of the 74 petitioners.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, it appears that the award of cost imposed in any case is too harsh for
SPLAD No. 609 of 2026
2
the occurrence noticed by the learned single judge. While no interference
may be made on the merits of the issue and it may be clearly recorded that
no ground has been pressed to challenge the order of the learned single
judge, on merits, to the extent of cost, interference is offered.
7. In view of the above, the cost Rs. 1 lac imposed on the deponent
and Rs. 1,000/- on each of the 74 petitioners is deleted.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 7, 2026
#Vikram/-
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…