Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 110 (JK)

Sardari Lal v. Raj Kumar

2012-03-14

body2012
1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 18-1-2010, of court below, by virtue of which application filed by the petitioners herein for restoration of appeal against the order of Collector Agrarian Reforms 24-5-90, has been dismissed on the ground that, it is time barred and no sufficient cause has been shown. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that court below decided the application without hearing them. That application for restoration of appeal moved with sufficient reason but court below has not considered the reason. 3. I have heard both the counsel at length and perused the record of court below. 4. From the perusal of record of the court below, it reveals that Niab Tehsildar R.S. Pura passed an order of resumption of land in favour of respondents under section 7 of agrarian reform act 1976 vide mutation no. 135 of village Chak Prema R.S. Pura. This order was challenged by petitioner before Joint Financial Commissioner ( with power of commissioner agrarian ) who set aside the same and remamded the case to A.C.G collector agrarian reform jammu for fresh inquiry. Assistant Commissioner (G) Collector Agrarian Reform Jammu on dated 24-5-90, passed the order against petitioners and again this order was challenged before Commissioner agrarian (F.C) AND SUSEQUENTLY IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO Director land record vide S.R.O DT 21 4 1998. This appeal was dismissed in default on 21.4.1998. 5. Petitioners herein filed a restoration application and stated in the application that, they entered in to an agreement of compromise with respondents and thus failed to peruse the appeal. They were advised by their counsel not to appear. They came to know about dismissal of appeal in March 2009, that absence was neither deliberate nor intentional. 6. Respondent here in appeared and filed objections. In objections it was stated that application is time barred and further application has been filed against dead person. That some of the land has already been resumed to them. 7. The court below after appreciating the pleading and hearing, came to conclusion that application for issuance of certified copy of order was made on 14-7-09, and it was received by petitioner on 15-7-2009 and application for restoration of appeal was moved on 12-8-09, i.e. after more than four months from the date of knowledge and after 28 days after receipt of certified copy. So it was concluded by the court below that, no sufficient cause has been shown. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record below. 9. From the perusal of record of the court below, it reveals that Petitioners herein, who were appellants before the court below always remained casual and negligent in prosecution of their case. It was brought to the knowledge of petitioners in objections filed by respondents before court below, that application for restoration of appeal has been moved against dead person, but still they did not try to imp lead legal heirs of deceased respondents as party to litigation before the court below. 10. Even before this court, they have made deceased Kailash Kumar and Raj Kumar who have died on 23-12-01 and 27-5-92, as respondents. Present revision has been filled on 21.4.2010 and application for bringing on record legal heirs of deceased respondents 1and 3 was filed on 22.9.2010, which at is not maintainable, as this application has been filled after filling of revision petition against dead respondents. These two respondents have died even before dismissal of appeal in default before the court below. Further, it has been mentioned in the application that due compromise between the parties, they did not pursue the case. This fact is not supported with any document from which, it can be inferred that some compromise has ever taken place between parties. 11. Even no affidavit has been filed before court below in support of application for restoration of appeal. Even no application for condonation of delay in terms of section 5 of Limitation Act was filed before the court below along with application for restoration of appeal. It appears that facts narrated in application for restoration of appeal has been planted and these are not true facts. 12. Law is very much clear that each and every day after the limitation period is to be explained by a person seeking benefit of section 5 of limitation Act. In the present case a general averments have made with regard to sufficient cause in main application, that too without filling any application under section 5 of limitation act and without annexing any affidavit. Law of limitation is meant for sensible and diligent persons and not for person, who is casual and not careful in persecution of his case. In the present case a general averments have made with regard to sufficient cause in main application, that too without filling any application under section 5 of limitation act and without annexing any affidavit. Law of limitation is meant for sensible and diligent persons and not for person, who is casual and not careful in persecution of his case. Even before this court petitioner has come after more than three months of passing of order. 13. Law of limitation has to applied, where party fails to show sufficient cause. IN A.IR 1998 PAGE 2276 CASE TITLE P.K Ramachandran v/s state of kerla it is held as under:- Limitation Act 36 of 1953 -- Section 5 -- Delay -- condonation of -- Law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by statue -- court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds. Para 6 -- Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with its entire rigor prescribed by statue court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by high court was thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning delay cannot be sustained. 14. In view of what has been discussed above this revision petition is de-void of any merit. Hence it is dismissed. 15. File of the court below is sent back along with a copy of this order. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.