REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 301 of 2024 Shrawan Prajapati State of U.P & Anr. v. Revisionist(s)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that prior to filing of this revision, the revisionist preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the ground taken that he was financially 2 CRLRD No.…
- Para 88. The application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed, 3 CRLRD No. 301 of 2024 hence no further order is required to be passed.
Judgment
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that prior to filing of this revision, the revisionist preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the ground taken that he was financially 2 CRLRD No. 301 of 2024 poor is not tenable. If the financial condition of the revisionist was poor, then under what circumstances he managed to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed as withdrawn. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon paragraph nos. 260, 261, 262 and 264 of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019, which reads as under:- attitude authorities "262 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous State instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State- authority.
They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law. 263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting litigations paraphernalia. deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice. Such
264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law. "
Having regard to the fact that there is inordinate delay of 5044 days in filing the revision. The said delay is inordinate and cannot be condoned as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra).
The application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed, 3 CRLRD No. 301 of 2024 hence no further order is required to be passed.
Subject to the observations made above, this revision is consigned to records. September 19, 2025 Faridul (Harvir Singh,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.