Satnam Singh vs Inderjit Singh

Rajan Kashyap, FC.

These are five connected petitions seeking review of orders of my learned predecessor of 28.4.1989. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had

dismissed revision petitions presented to him against orders of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar of 1.11.1983 dismissing appeals

against orders of the Collector in regard to surplus area cases. I observe that this litigation started in the distant past. The facts and the merits of the

cases have been duly considered by the lower courts. I do not go into the merits and the legal issues which have already been adjudicated upon. I

merely consider the plea for reopening the matter in review on the point of limitation. The petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing the review

petition. Arguments in regard to limitation in filing review petitions were heard on 16.4.98 when it was posted for orders in regard to its

admissibility for today. The only plea of the petitioner is that the decision of my predecessor of 28.4.89 came to the knowledge of the petitioner

many years after the order had been made, and he filed the review petitions immediately thereafter on 7.3.94.

The counsel for the respondents Sh. H.S. Jaswal and also the counsel for the State had raised preliminary objections that the decision of Shri

Hari Ram my learned predecessor dismissing revision petitions against the Commissioner''s orders was made on 28.4.1989. The limitation for

reviewing these orders was 90 days starting from 28.4.1989. The review petitions were actually presented to this court (my predecessor) on

7.3.1994. The delay is, therefore, of almost five years. The counsel for the respondents points out that no explanation has been given by the

petitioner''s for this abnormal delay. It is pointed out by counsel for the State that the petitioners counsel had been present before the Financial

Commissioner (my predecessor Sh. Hari Ram) during the course of proceedings in the revision petition. The counsel for the petitioners, therefore,

cannot at this belated stage claim ignorance of the progress of the case and of the orders of the Financial Commissioner when he himself had been

appearing regularly in hearings in the revision petitions.

On going through the record I find that it is correct that the petitioner was a party before Sh. Hari Ram, Financial Commissioner and appeared

before that court in a number of hearings. The plea of ignorance about the proceedings and condonation of time bar is, therefore, frivolous and

without substance.

I see absolutely no reason for reopening the matter which has long since been settled. There is no justification for an abnormal delay of about

five years in filing the review petitions. Accordingly the review petitions are dismissed in limine.

Announced.

Petitions dismissed.