Court No. - 5
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 67 of 2019 Revisionist :- Malti Devi Opposite Party :- Baij Nath And 17 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramendra Nath Tiwari,Amarnath Tiwari
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Ramendra Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist.
This revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, has been filed beyond limitation by 407 days along with a Delay Condonation Application and affidavit. The affidavit accompanying the Delay Condonation Application has been sworn by the son of the defendant-revisionist namely, Sri Anil Yadav aged about 39 years, who has shown his occupation in the affidavit as 'House Wife'. The occupation has been deliberately concealed. The affidavit accompanying the Delay Condonation Application is reproduced below:
"1. That the deponent is the son of the revisionist-defendant and is pairokar on her behalf in the aforesaid revision and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed hereto below.
2. That the plaintiff respondent filed suit no.57 of 2013, Baij Nath and others Vs. Smt. Malti Devi which was heard and decreed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12 on 11.05.2018.
3. That the revisionist/defendant applied for certified copy of judgment and decree on 11.05.2018. Certified copy of judgment dated 11.5.2018 was supplied to the revisionist on 15.5.2018, however, the decree was not prepared, hence its copy was not given.
4. That it appears that the decree was prepared on 24.5.2018, but its information was not communicated either to the revisionist or her counsel engaged in Trial Court.
5. That in the meantime, the revisionist became seriously ill and was under treatment and after being cured, she contacted her counsel Sri Amar Nath Tiwari, Advocate on 01.07.2018, but the counsel Mr. Amar Nath Tiwari said that in filing the revision about Rs.2000/- which could not be arranged by the deponent having no source of income as her two cows to which she was keeping in the premises in question were removed by Municipal Corporation for the reasons that the cows or buffalo can not be kept in Corporation Area.
6. That thus revisionist-defendant was in search of money for filing the revision which she collected on 17.07.2019 obtained certified copy of decree which was delivered to her on 22.07.2019 and thereafter this revision is filed.
7. That the revision could not be filed in time as the revisionist was an orphan lady having small children prior to 1990 and it was the plaintiff Baij Nath who came forward and earlier provided her premises in question without any rent but without any written agreement exorbitant rent of Rs.4,000/- per month was claimed giving rise to filing the suit before the trial court.
8. That however, the revisionist was pursuing her life with all effort with the help of two cows but those were also removed by the revisionist herself on pressure of the officers of Municipal Corporation for the reason disclosed by them that no cow or buffalo can be kept within the limits of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, hence that source of revisionist also smashed which gave reason for delay in collecting the money for filing the revision.
9. That it is expedient in the interest of justice that delay i filing the revision be condoned by giving benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the revision be treated to have been filed within time and pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice".
Paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have been sworn on personal knowledge, while paragraph Nos.3 and 4 have been sworn on the basis of record. No material has been brought on record either in support of the alleged illness or removal of cows by the Municipal Corporation, as alleged in pragraph-5 of the affidavit afore-quoted. The afore-quoted affidavit filed by the defendant-revisionist in support of the Delay Condonation Application, does not disclose sufficient cause for delay. The explanation offered is wholly vague and is not based on any material. Therefore, the Delay Condonation Application cannot be allowed.
The Delay Condonation Application No.4 of 2019 is rejected. Consequently, the revision also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Ak/