AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff is the revision peiitioner before me whose suit was decreed by the trial court subject to payment of Rs. 2125/ i. e. l/4th of the sale
consideration which was annulled to that extent by it. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 28.12.1973 Being aggrieved there by he filed an
application for review of the judgment as according to him he could not have been asked to pay the aforesaid sum to the vendee which he had not
himself received but which had received by the other defendants in the suit. This application was however rejected by the trial court on 9.4.1980
The petitioner feeling aggrived of the aferosaid order has come up in. revision to this court which he filed on 16.10.1980. Since the revision petition
was filed beyond ninety days, he also moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay in filing the
revision. This is CMP No. 13 of 1981. This judgment will govern the disposal of civil revision petition No. 115/80 as well as CMP 13/81.
Strictly speaking no period of limitations provided for filing a revision petition but it has been consistently held by this court that normally a
revision petition shall be filed within the same period whis is prescribed for filing an appeal against a decree or order. Limitation for filing an appeal
being admittedly ninety days, this revision petition which has been filed on 190th day is barred by 100 days. Section 5 of the Limitatior Act in
terms does not apply to revision petitions. The only question of this revision petition turns is whether any indulgence can be shown to ilie petitioner
to treat his revision petition within time I have gone through the application seeking condonation of the delay. The only ground urged in this
application is that since the petitioner was away on account of his business activies, he could not file the revision petition in time. I must at once say
that this is hardly a ground for seeking condonation of dely. If a party is keen about his business activities, it is supposed to be equally keen about
his litigation activities. The petitioner ought to have been careful enough that he seeks the remedy under law within time, He has not done so, He
has cared more for his business than for his case. He hardly deserves any indulgence at the hands of the court. The revision peition being thus
clearly barred by time, it is dismissed accordingly. The revision petitioner, if he is so advised may go in for appeal against the decree itself but that
would be subject to just exceptions by the other side. This also disposes of CMP 13/18. Srinagar. 18.9.1982. Sd/Judge