AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Â
This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay
of 396 days in preferring the present revision.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court the petitioner, due to wrong
advise of the counsel, preferred appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge being Eviction Appeal
No.5 of 2015. That in course of hearing the lower appellate court vide order dated 28.05.2016 dismissed the appeal as not
maintainable. That after obtaining certified copy of the said order the petitioner came and met his counsel on 25.06.206 in the High
Court whereafter the counsel advised the petitioner to file the present revision. That the delay in filing the revision occurred due to
preparation of the draft and the time taken in obtaining and collecting the documents.
It is submitted by the counsel that there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner rather it is due to wrong advise
of the counsel that he had preferred the appeal. It is prayed that if the delay is not condoned the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss
and 2. injury as he has a good case.
Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in fact earlier against the judgment and decree of
eviction the petitioner had preferred civil revision. That a Bench of this High Court while affirming the judgment and decree was
pleased to remit the matter to the court below on the limited question to give a finding on the question of partial eviction. Thereafter the
court below, after giving an opportunity to the parties, recorded the finding that the partial eviction was not feasible and accordingly
passed the judgment and decree of eviction. It is contended that the plea of the learned counsel that petitioner was not aware about
the provision of law cannot be accepted. It has further been submitted that the decree has been executed and the petitioner has been
evicted from the suit premises.
Heard. The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party has not been controverted by the petitioner. It is evident that
the petitioner had earlier preferred a revision against the judgment and decree of eviction. Thereafter when the matter was remitted and
the judgment and decree for eviction was passed, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The conduct for the petitioner is not above
board. He is a conscious litigant and well aware about the provision of law. The appeal was intentionally filed by him to delay the
execution of the decree. When the appeal was dismissed, he has again approached this Court by taking such plea for condoning the
delay. In the attending facts and circumstances no sufficient cause or reasonable explanation is made out for the delay. Accordingly, the
prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. 5. In view of the above, I.A. Nos.4757 and 4758 of 2016 stands dismissed and the revision
petition is, hereby, dismissed as being barred by limitation.Â