Virendra Singh vs Darshan Singh

Rohit Arya, J.—The instant revision is directed against the order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 3-A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the First Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.2007 was barred by time and the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby, appellants had preferred Second Appeal No. 83/2009. This Court had passed a judgment dated 23rd September, 2009. It is upon this issue as to "whether the appellate Court has acted with illegality in dismissing appeal as barred by time without holding an enquiry on the application for condonation of delay?" By a detailed order, this Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and directed that the application for condonation of delay be dealt with afresh in accordance with law with due opportunities to the parties. The First Appellate Court accordingly by the impugned order has considered the application for condonation of delay after hearing both the parties and passed an order dated 08.10.2012 condoning the delay. It is find out from the record that after condonation of delay by the impugned order while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 3-A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the First Appellate Court condoned the delay and also imposed cost of Rs. 2000/-. The cost amount has already been paid to the applicants by the respondents.

The instant revision preferred against the said order by itself is barred by 100 days. No explanation much less plausible explanation is given for explaining the delay of 100 days. Hence, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Even otherwise, on merits as well I find no illegality or irregularity committed by the First Appellate Court while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 3-A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal. In view of the aforesaid, this instant revision being misconceived is dismissed on merit and the delay as well.

With the reason which reflects total lacks of bonafides on the part of the applicants to prefer this revision petition. In view of the aforesaid, revision lacks bonafide besides being misconceived, is hereby dismissed.