AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
The present review petition has been preferred for reviewing of the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5526 of 2014.
The present review petition has been preferred with a delay of 147 days and the ground in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for delay in filing the present review petition was attributed to the illiteracy of the petitioners and ignorance of law, on account of which, the said review petition could not be preferred within the period of limitation of 30 days after passing of the impugned order. Thus, it was prayed that delay be condoned and order dated 30.06.2023 be recalled and reviewed.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this Court doesn't find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order nor there is any error apparent on the face of record which could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners except for the fact that the certain documents which were filed alongwith the reply in the writ petition were not considered.
Admittedly, the suit between the parties out of which Writ Petition No.5526 of 2014 had arisen, was with regard to specific performance of agreement to sale of certain lands situated at Village Manpur Gird of Gwalior, Tehsil and District Gwalior and undisputedly, the present petitioners/respondents No.12 to 14 were not party to the contract i.e. the agreement to sale dated 21.04.2011 entered into between the plaintiffs and other respondents and as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Panna & Another Vs. Jeevanlal & another reported in (1976) MPLJ 170, Deputy Commissioner Vs. Ramkrishna reported in AIR (1952) SC 521; Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others reported in AIR (1958) SC 886 and Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733, the present petitioners/respondents No.12 to 14 since were not party to the agreement executed between the plaintiffs and other respondents,, they were not necessary party, the order dated 04.08.2014 by which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed, was held to be perverse.
The contention of the petitioner that the certain documents filed by the petitioners/respondents No.12 to 14 were not considered while passing of the impugned order is of no relevance.
Even otherwise, so far as ignorance of law and illiteracy of review petitioners is concerned, it is very well settled ignorance of law is no excuse, and if, party is sleeping over its own rights as has been done by the review petitioners, then no relief to such persons should be granted. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of approximately 147 days in filing the present review petition. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby rejected.
Thus on both the counts i.e. on merits as well as on the point of limitation, the present review petition is dismissed.