AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After this Bench announced Judgment on 30121968 in this case, the learned Additional Advocate General brought to our notice the provisions of
Rule 27 (6) made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which read as under:
An application for review of any order may be made within thirty days of the date of such order and shall be presented either in person or through
a legal practitioner or a recognized agent.
This rule was not cited at the bar at the time of arguments nor were these rules available in the High Court library so that they could be made use of
at the time of writing judgment. This rule provides a limitation of 30 days for a review petition. After this rule was brought to our notice, we
ordered that the case would be rehired on this point. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Under this rule 27 (6) of the Rules under the Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act, 2006, as already indicated a period of limitation for a
review petition is 30 days. In our judgment of 3l)th December 1968, we had decided this point on general principles as no period of limitation for a
review petition was brought to our notice at the time of arguments Therefore our judgment dated 30th December 1963 stands amended on the
point of limitation for review. The application for review before the learned Custodian General was presented after one year and three days.
Obviously it was time barred. There was no attempt at getting the delay condoned nor was there any reason given by the learned Custodian
General for condoning the delay. Therefore also the order of the Custodian General was bad in the eye of the law and had to be set aside.
Some sort of a written memorandum called 'submission' on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 on the merits of the case have been placed on the file
by Mr. Joginder Singh Advocate but he was not present to press these at the time of rehearing. We have gone through the submissions also but in
our opinion they are not relevant for the disposal of this petition. Therefore our order dated 30th December 1963 stands.
It is modified only to this extent that instead of holding 90 days as the period of limitation for a review of an order by the Custodian General we
hold that on the basis of Rule 27 (6) of the Rules under the Act 30 days from the impugned order as the time within which ordinarily an application
for review should be presented before the Custodian General.
The result is that the appeal is accepted and the order of the learned Single Judge of the court dated 2981966 and that of a Custodian General
dated 2241965 are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.