Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 135 (JK)

Union of India v. Kaulan Devi & Ors.

2013-03-08

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2013
1. By the medium of this limitation petition, the petitioner-Union of India is seeking condonation of 32 days delay which has crept-in in filing the review petition, titled as, Union of India v. Koulan Devi & others. 2. It is contended that a Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the petitioner-Union of India, which came to be disposed of vide judgment doted 06.08.2012. After noticing the judgment, the petitioner-Union of India decided to file the review petition. Since it was barred by 32 days, the present application for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. While going through the application, I find that the petitioner-Union of India has failed to carve out sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The petitioner had to explain each and every day's delay, which it has failed. The application contains seven paragraphs. The petitioner has not given any ground not to speak of sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Neither it is pleaded by the petitioner that it was prevented by any reason which was beyond its control to take a decision and file the review petition in time nor there is any proof on the file to authenticate the same. 4. The Apex Court in case, Union of India v. Nripen Sarma, Civil Appeal No. 1922/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14065 of 2008), decided on 17th February, 2011, has held that the Union of India pught to have been careful. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment herein. "The appellant has preferred this appeal against the final judgment dated 10.09.2007 before this Court. This appeal is also barred by limitation of 114 days. There is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay before this Court also. The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases." 5. I have also gone through the memo of review petition. No ground as per the mandate of Section 114 read with Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure is projected. 6. I have also gone through the memo of review petition. No ground as per the mandate of Section 114 read with Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure is projected. 6. Viewed thus, the limitation petition merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition too stands dismissed being barred by time.