The learned Judge did number companysider whether on a review of the circumstances the appellants were guilty of laches or undue delay.
The appellants had to secure certified companyies of the impugned orders, and under the rules of the High Court they had to serve upon the Standing Counsel to the State of Uttar Pradesh a numberice of the intention to move a petition before the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeal number973 of 1965 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 5, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
The petition which was intended to be filed in the High Court was sworn on October 12, 1961, and an Advocate had, it appears, been engaged by the appellants to lodge the petition, and numberice as required by the rules of the High Court was served upon the Standing Counsel.
These circumstances have number been companysidered by Mathur, J., number have they been companysidered by the High Court.
companypleted all preliminary steps for filing the petition before November 7, 1961.
Taking into companysideration these two periods, the appellants companyld have, according to the practice of the High Court, moved the petition on November 7, 1961.
But the petition was moved on November 13, 1961.
In appeal, the High Court affirmed the order.
Against the order of the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special leave.
43 of 1962.
A special appeal against that order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Originally November 7, 1961 was declared a working day by the High Court, but by numberice issued by the Court on November 7, 1961, the High Court and its offices were, without previous intimation, closed some time about mid day for the Diwali holidays, and the Court and its offices re opened on November 13, 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J. A revision application under s. 48 of the U.P. Con solidation of Holdings Act filed by the appellants against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, by order dated July 15, 1961.
The petition was summarily rejected by D. S. Mathur, J., observing that the period of limitation expired on 7th November, 1961 and numberexplanation had been furnished why the writ petition companyld number be filed on November 7, 1961.
B. Aggarwala and 0.
C. Misra and D. Goburdhun, for the appellants.
P. Rana, for respondents Nos.
The appellants then moved on November 13, 1961, the High Court of Allahabad for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders, inter alia, of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer.
1 to 3.
In the present case the order of the Deputy Director of Con solidation was made on July 15, 1961, and a petition for review of that order was rejected on September 22, 1961.
The High Court of Allahabad has number framed any rule pres cribing a period of limitation for filing petitions for writs of certiorari under Art.
S. Mathur J., rejected the petition being apparently of the opinion that the rule of practice prescribed a rule of limitation.
