On November 21, the Allahabad High Court's single bench observed that the District Judge of Varanasi is in the habit of committing impropriety in the discharge of his judicial function, and ordered him to appear before it along with the original record of a case. The court made this order after noting that the District Judge had admitted a revision petition without allowing for delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The High Court questioned the Varanasi Court's decision to hear the case two weeks before the scheduled date of November 1, 2022 observing that"...how the case has been advanced by two weeks to pass the order is not reflected from the order sheet. It is well settled that unless and until Section 5 application is allowed neither the appeal nor the revision can be held to be a competent one."

The Court also noted that the same judge had previously made a similar error by admitting one revision petition without condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the matter was disposed of by the HC after taking a lenient stance in the matter.

The case involves a defective revision (being barred by time) filed before the Court, and because the summons had yet to be served, the revision applicant was directed to do pairvi. However, the matter could not be taken up on two subsequent dates (August 22, 2022, and August 28, 2022) because the lawyers were unable to work.

Furthermore, on September 7, 2022 (the next date), the presiding officer was preoccupied with some administrative work, so the matter could not be taken up. However, on the following date (October 12, 2022), the District Judge issued an order summoning the execution case record rather than the suit record.

Case Title: Asheem Kumar Das v. Manish Viswas And 4 Others

Citation: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10301 of 2022

Link: https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadJudgmentDocument.do