Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KUMAR SONKAR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kumar Sonkar & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 13 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 819 (12 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Special Appeal No. (13) of 2006

Ram Kumar Sonkar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others

~~~~~

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 50946 of 2003 by which the writ petition was dismissed.

The office has reported that the Appeal is barred by time by 214 days. An application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') supported by the affidavit of Manoj Kumar-appellant No.2 has been filed. It has been stated that the applicants had applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 well within time but could not obtain the same within the limitation period. They, thereaftrer submitted another application for obtaining the certified copy but till date they have not received a copy. Thereafter the applicants applied on 22.12.2005 for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 46812 of 2003 and when they obtained the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment and order on 23.12.2005, the Special Appeal was prepared by their counsel and thereafter it was filed in Court. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have prayed for condoning the delay in filing the Special Appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and have carefully perused the affidavit filed in support of the said application for condoning the delay.

We find from the records that the appellants have not disclosed the date on which the certified copy of the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 50946 of 2003 was applied for by the appellants. Likewise, the date on which the subsequent application was submitted by the appellants has also not been disclosed. We are, therefore, unaware of the dates on which the appellants actually applied for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 50946 of 2003. This apart, the appellants have not stated the number supplied by the office for obtaining the certified copies. On the other hand, the appellants have categorically mentioned the date by which the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 in Writ Petition No. 46812 of 2003 was applied and the date on which the certified copy of the judgment and order was made available to the appellants. It may be stated that this Court on 6.5.2005 by a common judgment and order disposed of a number of writ petitions and Writ Petition Nos. 50946 of 2003 and 46812 of 2003 are two of them.

What is also to be noticed is that the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit in which there is a mention of the applications submitted by the appellants in the aforesaid two writ petitions have been sworn on personal knowledge. It has not been stated by the appellants that the applications had been submitted by themselves and not by their counsel and, therefore, we are doubtful as to who Manoj Kumar-appellant No.2 can have personal knowledge of these facts.

We are, therefore, not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellants for condoning the delay in filing the Special Appeal. The delay, to us, does not appear to be bona fide. The application under Section 5 of the Act is, accordingly, rejected.

The Special Appeal, accordingly, fails and is also dismissed as the application under Section 5 of the Act has been rejected.

Dt/- 12.1.2006

Sharma


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.