Party Not Contacting Counsel For 6 Yrs, Can't Seek Delay Condonation Alleging Lawyer Didn't Inform About Disposal: Allahabad High Court

Recently, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a special appeal which was filed against order the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition for a delay of 6 years.

Petitioners filed revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which was dismissed vide an ex-parte order by the revisional authority in 2016. Thereafter, in 2022, petitioners filed a recall application against the ex-parte order along with a delay condonation application. In the delay condonation application it was alleged that the counsel did not inform them about the dismissal of the case.

Since the reasons in the delay condonation application were found insufficient and not proper, recall application was rejected. Petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed as the delay of 6 years in approaching the authorities was not sufficiently explained.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed that there was a delay in filing the appeal when the writ petition was also dismissed on grounds of delay. The Court observed that though allegations had been made against the counsel, no averment was made stating that any efforts were made by the petitioner to seek details of the case from the counsel and that the counsel had denied such information.

The Court held that “the party, which does not contact the counsel for six years, cannot seek condonation of delay based on the allegations that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the case.”

Accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Jagdish And 4 Others vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 355 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 281

Click Here To Read/Download Order