Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 866 (PAT)

Md. Rahim @ Rahim Mian v. Habib Mian

2007-05-02

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2001 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Saran in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1997 refusing to revive Title Appeal No. 17 of 1966, have preferred this application. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that Title Appeal No. 17 of 1966 stand abated in light of Sec. 4(C) of Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. Petitioners filed application for its revival on 27.7.1997 alongwith application for condoning the delay, inter alia alleging that notification under Sec. 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been cancelled under Sec. 4A of the said Act by notification dated 21.11.1993. By reason of the impugned order, the prayer made by the petitioners for condonation has been rejected and the Miscellaneous case being barred by limitation has been dismissed on that count alone. 3. Mr. Parbat, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners did not know about the cancellation of the notification and when they came to know about it filed the application on 27.7.1997. He submits that the Court below ought to have taken a pragmatic view of the matter and condoned the delay. 4. Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6, however, submits that the explanation put forward by the petitioners being absolutely vague, the Court below did not err in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 5. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Parbat. It is not expected of the people living in the villages to inquire about the notification everyday. It is common knowledge that such notifications are not widely published. In my opinion, had the Court below taken a pragmatic view of the matter it ought to have found the explanation sufficient and condoned the delay. I am of the opinion that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 6. It is relevant here to state that the Court below had rejected the application for revival of the title appeal only on the ground that the petition filed is barred by limitation. As I am of the view that the said conclusion is incorrect, the Court below shall now consider the case on merit. 7. 6. It is relevant here to state that the Court below had rejected the application for revival of the title appeal only on the ground that the petition filed is barred by limitation. As I am of the view that the said conclusion is incorrect, the Court below shall now consider the case on merit. 7. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in regard thereto. 8. Petitioners as also Opposite Party state that they shall appear before the Court below within eight weeks and shall not await the issuance of notice to them. 9. Let it be done. 10. As the matter is pending since long the Court below shall pass order on merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners within two months from the date of appearance of the party as indicated above. 11. In the result, the application is allowed, the order dated 3.5.2001 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Saran in Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1997 is set aside with the direction aforesaid. No cost.