Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 7]

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. & Others vs Pradeep Kumar Srivastava on 4 January, 2010

Author: C.K. Prasad

Bench: C.K. Prasad, Pankaj Mithal

   Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 108809 of 2004
                                In re :
          Special Appeal (Defective) No. 526 of 2004


Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

According to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by limitation by 217 days.

Various reasons, which prevented the applicants from filing the appeal within time, have been enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of the application.

We are satisfied that the same constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands allowed.

Dt. 4.1.2010 S.S. (Pankaj Mithal, J.) (C.K. Prasad, C.J.) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 526 of 2004 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. & Others Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Petitioner Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Chandramauli Kumar Prasad,Chief Justice Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Respondents-appellants aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46321 of 2003 have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ application in terms of the order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6319 (S/S) of 2003 (Chandra Kishore and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

Mr. M.S. Pipersenia, appears on behalf of the appellants. It is common ground that in the light of the order of this Court Section 21-E has been inserted in U.P. Secondary Service Selection Board Act, 1982.

In view of the aforesaid legislative insertion, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this appeal pending.

It stands dismissed accordingly. Dt. 4.1.2010.

S.S. (Pankaj Mithal, J.) (C.K. Prasad, C.J.)