Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

State of U.P. and Others Vs. Sanjay Singh and Others

State of U.P. and Others vs Sanjay Singh and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 17, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/469258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Special Appeal No. 75 of 1998
Subject
Limitation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Limitation - delay in filing appeal - Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - special appeal filed after gap of considerable days - no explanation for delay provided in appeal - condonation of delay cannot be granted - appeal stands barred on account of delay. -

Key legal issue
Limitation
Acts & sections
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 5; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate Hanuman Upadhya, Adv.

Respondent

Sanjay Singh and Others

Legal References

Acts
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 5; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5
Reported In
1998(2)AWC1037

Excerpt

limitation - delay in filing appeal - rule 5 of chapter viii of allahabad high court rules, 1952 - special appeal filed after gap of considerable days - no explanation for delay provided in appeal - condonation of delay cannot be granted - appeal stands barred on account of delay. - d.s. sinha and o.p. jain, jj.1. heard sri hanuman upadhya, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants.2. the report of the stamp reporter points out that instant appeal is beyond time by 343 days.3. the appeal is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963, supported by the affidavit of smt. sangita chakravarti. praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.4. paragraph 4 of the affidavit which purports to explain the cause of delay runs as below:that the appellants after receiving a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 4.2.1997. immediately furnished the entire papers in the office of chief standing counsel for preparation of the special appeal and thereafter the special appeal was prepared and the same is being filed before this hon'ble court without any further delay.'5. in the opinion of the court, the averments in the paragraph 4 of the affidavit reproduced above, do not constitute sufficient cause and ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 343 days.6. the appeal is held to be barred by time.7. otherwise also, the appeal lacks merit inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on the admission of learned standing counsel of the appellants regarding the factual and legal position in the case.8. in the result the appeal is dismissed summarily.

Full Judgment

D.S. Sinha and O.P. Jain, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Hanuman Upadhya, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. The report of the Stamp Reporter points out that instant appeal is beyond time by 343 days.

3. The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, supported by the affidavit of Smt. Sangita Chakravarti. praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit which purports to explain the cause of delay runs as below:

That the appellants after receiving a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 4.2.1997. immediately furnished the entire papers in the office of Chief Standing Counsel for preparation of the special appeal and thereafter the special appeal was prepared and the same is being filed before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay.'

5. In the opinion of the Court, the averments in the paragraph 4 of the affidavit reproduced above, do not constitute sufficient cause and ground for condonation of inordinate delay of 343 days.

6. The appeal is held to be barred by time.

7. Otherwise also, the appeal lacks merit Inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on the admission of learned standing counsel of the appellants regarding the factual and legal position in the case.

8. In the result the appeal is dismissed summarily.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial