The Allahabad High Court, in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 226 of 2025 (Lal Chand v. Manoj Kumar), has clarified that review petitions filed beyond the limitation period must be treated as defective petitions until the delay is formally condoned.
The order was passed by Justice Ajit Kumar after hearing arguments from counsel for the applicant, Bansh Raj, and counsel for the opposite party, Abhishek Kumar Saroj. The Court examined the report submitted by the Registrar (J) (Listing), Sri Mayur Jain, dated 7 July 2025, in compliance with the Court’s earlier direction. The report had noted that, by practice, review petitions, though time-barred, were registered as regular petitions with only a remark noting the delay.
Justice Ajit Kumar observed that while writ petitions are generally registered as regular petitions without raising limitation issues—except for certified copies—the same does not apply to miscellaneous applications like review petitions. The Court emphasized that, upon delivery of judgment in a writ petition, the Court becomes functus officio, and thereafter, only a review petition is maintainable, making the law of limitation fully applicable.
Relying on precedents including Tilokchand and Motichand v. H.B. Munshi and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Court highlighted the principle that “the law is hard but it is the law” (dura lex sed lex). The judgment quoted the Supreme Court’s reiteration that inconvenience or hardship to a party is not a decisive factor and that courts have no power to extend the limitation period on equitable grounds.
Justice Ajit Kumar stated:
“The Limitation Act, 1963 is fully attracted in review petitions… If a review petition is barred by limitation, it should be reported as defective for delays if any.”
The Court further held that merely registering a review petition as a regular petition—based on practice or tradition in the High Court—should be discontinued. Notices must first be issued on the condonation of delay application, giving the other party the right to be heard before defects are removed. Only after condonation does the review petition become competent.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Stamp Reporter to re-report the current review petition as defective and ordered the matter to be placed before the Court afresh.
- Case Title: Lal Chand v. Manoj Kumar
- Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 226 of 2025
- Counsel for Applicant: Bansh Raj
- Counsel for Opposite Party: Abhishek Kumar Saroj
