Court No. - 30
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 54 of 2018 Revisionist :- Nora Francis Opposite Party :- Akeel Ahmad And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Sahai Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018 Re: Revision Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Stamp Reporter has reported delay of 1153 days in filing the present revision.
Present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15.5.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011 (Nora Francis vs. Akeel Ahmad and another).
Explanation given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application is that the review application filed by the revisionist for reviewing the order dated 15.5.2015 has been rejected on 8.5.2018 and therefore, the cause shown for delay is sufficient.
It was submitted that there was material mistake in the order dated 15.5.2015, whereby application paper no. 12-C, the delay condonation application filed in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act has been rejected. It was submitted that suit filed in the year 2009 was decided ex-parte on 18.9.2010 and an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on 14.2.2011 alongwith delay condonation application. The application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was filed on 17.2.2011. Subsequently, it was realized that there may be some delay in filing Section 17 application, therefore, delay condonation application was filed on 25.2.2011. The delay condonation application was rejected on 15.5.2015. When the counsel realized the mistake in the order dated 15.5.2015 impugned herein, a review was filed on 4.1.2018, which was rejected on 8.5.2018.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that since the revisionist was pursuing his case and the review was ultimately rejected on 8.5.2018, the delay in filing revision is liable to be condoned.
I have considered the submissions and have perused the record and the order dated 8.5.2018, which contains the necessary details.
There is no dispute about the dates that have been mentioned above. It is, therefore, not in dispute that application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was filed on 17.2.2011 subsequent to the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 14.2.2011. A delay condonation application was filed in Section 17 application paper no. 12-C on 25.2.2011. The same was rejected after more than four years on 15.5.2015. It is not in dispute that the review application was filed after a gap of about 2 years 7 months and 19 days as noticed by the courts below. There is no sufficient explanation for the same except that the delay in filing review application was explained as the local counsel found some illegality in the order dated 15.5.2015, therefore, the review application was filed.
In the opinion of the Court the review application was obviously filed to cover up the delay that has already been caused in challenging the order dated 15.5.2015.
On perusal of the order dated 8.5.2018 I do not find that any sufficient explanation for filing of review application and as such I do not find that the delay in filing the present revision is bonafide in any manner. For the purpose of condoning delay there should not be only the sufficient reason but the delay caused must be bonafide in nature.
A reference may be made in this regard to a judgment of this Court in the case of Arnold Harvey vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari 2018 (1) ARC 139.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay in filing the present revision. The delay condonation application is accordingly rejected and accordingly, the present revision also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Lalit Shukla