Idrish vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt.

the said reasons the impugned order is bad.

5. Learned standing counsel for the State has pointed out that the delay has not been explained at all. Vague assertions have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and in such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent No.2 cannot be faulted and the writ petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

6. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also from a perusal the material on record which reveals that the revision preferred by the petitioner arises out of mutation proceedings. The mutation proceedings initiated under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, came to be decided against the petitioner, against which a revision was preferred and the revision came to be dismissed in default by means of the order dated 06.05.2004. Thereafter, an application for restoration was moved on 19.05.2025 and a copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure No.7. The said application is also accompanied by an application of condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.

7. Having considered the aforesaid affidavit, which runs into 8 paragraphs, it would reveal that it has specifically been pleaded that the counsel for the petitioner had assured that as and when the presence of the petitioner would be required, he would be informed, however, in the meantime, the counsel had expired and the petitioner did not have any notice, which was the cause of delay.

8. Having considered the aforesaid, it would reveal that neither the name of the lawyer has been mentioned nor the date of the death of the lawyer has been mentioned. It has also not been indicated that as to when the petitioner contacted his counsel or his office and till when he was knowledge of the proceedings and was updated in respect thereto. It has also not been indicated when and from whom the petitioner actually got the information or knowledge of the fact that his counsel expired and 3 WRIC No. 11504 of 2025 when his revision had been dismissed for want of prosecution.

9. As far as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the taking a lenient view is concerned, it would be worthwhile to notice that it is not the length of delay which is material, but the sufficiency of cause which is of prime importance. A short period of delay can also be rejected, if sufficient cause is not shown and its converse, that even long delay, if properly explained can be condoned.

10. Though it is pleaded that the counsel for the petitioner had assured the petitioner regarding the pairvi but what is important to know is that a litigant cannot absolve himself of his case duty of keeping in constant touch with his counsel and keep oneself abreast with the progress of the matter. There is no such averment regarding the duty performed by the petitioner in keeping in touch with his counsel and in this view placing the blame on his counsel is clearly not appreciable and does not reflect bonafides of the petitioner.

11. Having taken note of the averments made in the affidavit in support of application seeking condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that no ground at all has been indicated and a very feeble attempt has been made to cover the limitation of about 14 years. This Court is satisfied that the exercise of discretion and jurisdiction as exercised by the respondent No.2 vide its impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is concerned does not suffer from any palpable error, which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, it is clear that mere dismissal of the petition may not come in the way of the petitioner in case if he chooses to agitate his rights on the regular side as the proceedings subject matter of this writ petition arose from the mutation proceedings, which are of summary nature. November 28, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the said reasons the impugned order is bad.

5. Learned standing counsel for the State has pointed out that the delay has not been explained at all. Vague assertions have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and in such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent No.2 cannot be faulted and the writ petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

6. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also from a perusal the material on record which reveals that the revision preferred by the petitioner arises out of mutation proceedings. The mutation proceedings initiated under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, came to be decided against the petitioner, against which a revision was preferred and the revision came to be dismissed in default by means of the order dated 06.05.2004. Thereafter, an application for restoration was moved on 19.05.2025 and a copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure No.7. The said application is also accompanied by an application of condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.

7. Having considered the aforesaid affidavit, which runs into 8 paragraphs, it would reveal that it has specifically been pleaded that the counsel for the petitioner had assured that as and when the presence of the petitioner would be required, he would be informed, however, in the meantime, the counsel had expired and the petitioner did not have any notice, which was the cause of delay.

8. Having considered the aforesaid, it would reveal that neither the name of the lawyer has been mentioned nor the date of the death of the lawyer has been mentioned. It has also not been indicated that as to when the petitioner contacted his counsel or his office and till when he was knowledge of the proceedings and was updated in respect thereto. It has also not been indicated when and from whom the petitioner actually got the information or knowledge of the fact that his counsel expired and 3 WRIC No. 11504 of 2025 when his revision had been dismissed for want of prosecution.

9. As far as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the taking a lenient view is concerned, it would be worthwhile to notice that it is not the length of delay which is material, but the sufficiency of cause which is of prime importance. A short period of delay can also be rejected, if sufficient cause is not shown and its converse, that even long delay, if properly explained can be condoned.

10. Though it is pleaded that the counsel for the petitioner had assured the petitioner regarding the pairvi but what is important to know is that a litigant cannot absolve himself of his case duty of keeping in constant touch with his counsel and keep oneself abreast with the progress of the matter. There is no such averment regarding the duty performed by the petitioner in keeping in touch with his counsel and in this view placing the blame on his counsel is clearly not appreciable and does not reflect bonafides of the petitioner.

11. Having taken note of the averments made in the affidavit in support of application seeking condonation of delay, this Court is satisfied that no ground at all has been indicated and a very feeble attempt has been made to cover the limitation of about 14 years. This Court is satisfied that the exercise of discretion and jurisdiction as exercised by the respondent No.2 vide its impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is concerned does not suffer from any palpable error, which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, it is clear that mere dismissal of the petition may not come in the way of the petitioner in case if he chooses to agitate his rights on the regular side as the proceedings subject matter of this writ petition arose from the mutation proceedings, which are of summary nature. November 28, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench