High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/64/2016dismissed

Vinod Puri v. Arjun

2016-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 64 of 2016 • Vinod Puri S/o Late Anand Puri Goswami, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post Demar, Thana Arjuni, Tahsil Dhamtari, Civil & Revenue District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Arjun S/o Hirderam Caste Bayamhar,

2. Ramratan S/o Kartik Ram Caste Yadav,

3. Tulsibai Wd/o Bhukhanram, Caste Dhimer,

4. Tileshwer S/o Late Derharam, Caste Lohar, All Resident of Village Demar, Patwari Halka No. 13, Tahsil Dhamtari, Thana Arjuni, Civil & Revenue District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 13/01/2016

1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (for short 'the Board') on 8-6-15 & 31-7-15, whereby the Board has allowed the application preferred by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has condoned the delay in preferring the revision.

2. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed by the opposite party would demonstrate that the appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur was heard on 7-5-12 and was posted for orders on

21-5-12, however, final order was not passed on that day. The final order was eventually passed on 28-6-12 without noticing the parties. The respondents became aware about the order in the last week of May, 2013 or first week of June, 2013 when they received notice from the Court of Tehsildar and applied for obtaining certified copy on 24-6-13, which was delivered to them after one year i.e. on 26-6-14. The revision application was preferred before the Board on 11-7-14.

3. Although the order passed by the Board is not elaborate but a finding has been recorded that the respondents have reasonably explained the delay in filing the revision application.

4. In matters concerning exercise of discretion for condonation of delay, this Court has limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would clearly demonstrate that the delay in filing revision was bona fide and was properly explained by the respondents.

5. For the foregoing, there is no substance in the writ petition. It fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu