AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 249 wordsLeave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case, it appears that the appellant's Revision Petition was dismissed by respondent No.1 herein on the ground of delay of three years. Since the Revision Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, the matter could not be heard on merits which gave rise to filing of Writ Petition by the appellant before the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the order passed by respondent No.1 which has given rise to this appeal by the appellant.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and having regard to the nature of controversy which was the subject matter of the Revision Petition, Writ Petition and this appeal, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petition by the appellant, subject to appellant's paying costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand).
Let the amount be deposited by the appellant with respondent No.1 within one month from today.
On such deposit being made, respondent No.1 will hear the Revision Petition filed by the appellant on merits and will dispose of the same strictly on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant in support of his revision.
It is with this direction, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part and the impugned order is set aside, as indicated above.