Jagdish Chandra Wadhwa vs Viith Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and Others

Mukteshwar Prasad, J.—Heard Sri S.A. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agrawal holding brief of Sri M.K.Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record carefully.

This petition was filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.9.1989 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C. and E.O.) and order dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has been urged on dehalf of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know for the first time on 18.2.1992 passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know for the first time on 18.2.1992 about the order of allotmen passed by the Rent Control and Evicition Officer when the police personnel arrived there and prior to that he had no knowledge of the order of allotment. After having come to know about the order, he obtained a certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and then moved an application for revision before the District Judge under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the relation between two brothers (Surendra Kumar, elder brother of the petitioner and petitioner) was strained and no notice was served on the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. He, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the real brother of the petitioner moved an application of review of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and both the brothers had full knowledge of the order of allotment. However, they maintained silence and did not file any revision before the District Judge. Moreover, it is no correct to say that the petitioner had no knowledge prior to 18.2.1992 and Revisional Court rightly rejected the application moved under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder, AIR 1987 SC 1354.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon two decisions of this Court in case of C.P. Gautam v. XIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and others, 1988 (2) ARC 436, and Smt.Rama Devi v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1991 (1) ARC 49.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the decisions relied upon by them. The law is well settled on the point that the Courts must be liberal in condoning the delay. The Supreme Court has observed that refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Every day''s delay must be explained, does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted upon against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is true that some delay took place in filing the revision on the part of the petitioner but he tried to show sufficient cause for the delay.

In view of the aforsaid decision of the Apex Court as well as other decisions on the point, I find that this petition has merit and delay in filing the revision is liable to be condoned.

In the result, the petition succeeds. The delay in filing the revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 is hereby condoned and the impugned order dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge is hereby set aside. The Revisional Court shall admit the revision and decide the same in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Revisioal Court shall try to dispose of the revision within a period of three months after reciept of a certified copy of this order. On order as to costs.

(Petition allowed)