Scribd
Upload
50 views7 pages

Application For Condonation

application for condonation of delay

Uploaded by

swarnim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views7 pages

Application For Condonation

application for condonation of delay

Uploaded by

swarnim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2010


Inre:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010

Ram Krishna Pandey ...... Appellant.


Versus
State of U.P. and others ...... Opposite
Parties.

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY


IN FILING CRIMINAL APPEAL

The appellant most respectfully begs to submit


as under:-
1. That the appellant had filed criminal revision
against acquittal bearing Criminal Revision No.
81/2010 with in time.

2. That an amendment have been incorporated in


Criminal Procedure Code that an appeal would lie
against acquittal in section 372 Cr.P.C.

3. That Criminal Revision No. 81/2010 “Ram Krishna


Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & others” has been
dismissed by this Hon’ble Court as withdrawn with
liberty to file criminal appeal by his order dated
10.2.2010 therefore, this appeal is in time and this
Hon’ble Court has granted permission to file
appeal by his order dated 10.2.2010.
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed
that delay if any may kindly be condoned since it
is not deliberately and intentionally.

LUCKNOW
DATED: ,2010. (SHAILESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA)
ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010

Ram Krishna Pandey @ Mauni ..........


Revisionist.
Versus
State of U.P. & another .......... Opposite
Parties.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sadhna Pandey, aged about 30 years, wife of Sri


Ram Krishna Pandey, resident of sakinan Rambagh,
Mazre Chausa, Police Station Kunda, District
Pratapgarh, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as under :-

1. That the deponent is the wife of applicant herself


in the above noted criminal appeal and as such
she is fully conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case deposed hereunder.

2. That under the advise given by the appellant


counsel the appellant has filed a criminal revision
against acquittal when it was brought to the notice
of revisionist counsel, learned counsel informed
the court that these provision that appeal will lie
against acquittal under the amendment provision
of 372 Cr.P.C.

3. That the court has also given liberty to file appeal


and the revision has been dismissed as withdrawn.

4. That delay in filing appeal is not deliberate one but


the same has been occurred due to in proper
advice.

Lucknow:
Dated : ,2010. DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the


contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true
to my personal knowledge. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed.
So help me God.
Lucknow
Dated : 2010.
DEPONENT

I, identify the deponent


Who has signed before me.

ADVOCATE

Solemnly affirmed before me on


At a.m. /p.m. by the deponent, who is
identified by Shri Shailesh Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent
that he understands the contents of this affidavit, which
have been read over and explained to him by me.

OATH COMMISSIONER
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO. (C) OF 2010

Gauri Shanker ............ Petitioner.


Versus

Shri Tribhuwan Ram, Engineer-in-Chief, 96, Mahatma


Gandhi Marg, P.W.D.Post Office Hazratganj, Lucknow.
............ Opposite Party.

TYPE COPY OF ANNEXURE NO. (1)

Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned


standing Counsel.

The petitioner claims promotion on the post of


promotion on the post of Junior Engineer.

Controversy relates to disputed question of facts.


The petitioner has already submitted a representation
to ventilate his grievance.

Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of


directing the competent authority to look into the
matter and decide the petitioner’s representation in
accordance with law by passing a speaking and
reasoned order expeditiously and preferable within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order and communicate the
decision to the petitioner.

Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed


of.

No order as to cost.
Order Date:- 25.8.2009 Sd/- Devi Prasad Singh
25.8.2009

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT


ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2010


Inre:
REVIEW PETITION NO. 216 OF 2009

Madhav Ram ......... Petitioner.


Versus
Commissioner Lucknow Division,
Lucknow ......... Opposite
Party.

APPLICATION FOR LISTING OF THE CASE

The applicant/petitioner named above, most


respectfully begs to submit as under:-

1. That the petitioner has filed the above noted


review petition before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the said review petition was listed but due to


the paucity of time it was not taken up and as such the
petitioner is suffering from the irreparable loss and
substantial injury.
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to list the case
earliest and allow the petition for which the petitioner
shall be highly obliged.

LUCKNOW
DATED: ,2009. (S.K. SINGH)
ADVOCATE
COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER

You might also like