Court No. - 5
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 68 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sukhan Chaudhary Opposite Party :- Aqeel Counsel for Revisionist :- Atul Sharma,Ajay Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
This revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, has been filed beyond limitation by 131 days along with a Delay Condonation Application and affidavit. The affidavit accompanying the Delay Condonation Application filed by the defendant-revisionist is reproduced below:
"1. That the deponent is the son of the revisionist and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed hereto below.
2. That the revisionist had challenged the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 by way of Misc. Petition Under Article 227 before this Hon'ble Court. The same was dismissed vide order dated 06.06.2019, with liberty to file a revision as per law. The copy of the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court has already been filed as Annexure No.11 to the affidavit.
3. That there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the present revision and due to mistake of the counsel for the revisionist has adopted wrong forum and therefore, the delay has been caused in filing the present revision is bonafide, which is liable to be condone by this Hon'ble Court and same may be heard on merits. So that justice be done.
4. That on the facts and circumstances stated above it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to condone the delay in filing the revision and same be heard on merit so that justice be done; otherwise revisionist shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any terms of the matter".
As per report of the Stamp Reporter, the limitation for filing the revision was up to 16.3.2019.
Learned counsel for the defendant-revisionst states that the petition being matters under Article 227 No.4824 of 2019 (Sukhhan Chaudhary v. Additional District Juddge-Ist/J.S.C.C. Bareilly and another) was filed in Registry on 3.6.2019 and it was dismissed by the Court by order dated 6.6.2019 as under:
"At the very outset Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court, Act. He seeks leave to withdraw the petition under Article 227 with liberty to file a revision.
The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a revision as per law".
Perusal of the affidavit accompanying the Delay Condonation Application clearly reveals that no explanation has been offered for the delay for the period from 16.3.2019 to 3.6.2019. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any explanation for the aforesaid period, the delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. The afore-quoted affidavit filed by the defendant-revisionist in support of the Delay Condonation Application, does not disclose sufficient cause for delay. 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/