Tirath Ram & ANR v. Punjab Wakf Board

CR No.6521 of 2018 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6521 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision:04.12.2018 Tirath Ram and another ... Petitioners Vs.

Punjab Wakf Board ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the respondents AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.09.2018, whereby, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, at the instance of the petitioners seeking condonation of delay, has been dismissed.

Mr. Rahul Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that delay was neither intentional nor willful but owing to the reasoned mentioned in the application. I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, no doubt, the law of limitation cannot be pressed into service with rigour and force but the delay as explained cannot be said to be un-intentional or bonafide. This view of mine is derived from the ratio decidendi culled out SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.10 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.6521 of 2018 (O&M) {2} by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another 2012(2) SCT

269. The explanation given in the application is bereft of the reasonable cause.

The impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from illegality and perversity. The revision petition stands dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 04, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.10 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh