Pan Singh Dhoni & Others vs Ravindra Singh Bisht

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

Petitioner is a tenant in respect of shop which belongs to the respondent. Respondent - Ravindra Singh Bisht filed an eviction suit against petitioners in the court of Judge, Small Cause/Civil Judge (J.D.), Pithoragarh, which was dismissed by learned trial court vide judgment dated 24.12.2012. Thereafter, respondent filed a revision petition, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before learned District Judge, Pithoragarh. Since there was delay of one month and 13 days, therefore, he also filed a delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Petitioners filed their objection to the delay condonation application. The said delay condonation application, having been allowed by learned District Judge, petitioners have approached this Court by filing present writ petition.

I have gone through the order passed by learned District Judge on the delay condonation application filed by the respondent. Learned District Judge has allowed the delay condonation application subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- mainly on the ground that the delay was caused due to confusion regarding period of limitation for filing revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  K.Subbarayudu & others Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LAO) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840 has held that liberal and justice oriented approach should be adopted while considering delay condonation application. Para 11 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

"The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fides is attributable to the appellants, the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay. In State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752, it was held as under:-

"..... Section 5 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. The provision contemplates that the court has to go in the position of the person concerned and to find out if the delay can be said to have been resulted from the cause which he had adduced and whether the cause can be recorded in the peculiar circumstances of the case as sufficient.""

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality whatsoever in the impugned order passed by learned revisional court. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.