NAND SINGH Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10th January, 1991 passed by Shri M.S. Rohilla, Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he has dismissed the apeal filed against the order dated 13th September, 1989 passed by the Estate Officer being time barred for one day.

(2.) There is no dispute that no application for condonation of one day's delay in Filing the appeal was Filed along with the main appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submils that although no written application for condonation of one day's delay was filed 83 but in fact he did make an oral application before the Additional District Judge for the same on the ground the son and grand son of the petitioner were implicated in a false and frivolous case at Ambala under Sections 307/332/353 and 125 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 -of the TDPS Act vide FIR No-393 dated 14.8.1988 at Police Station Ambala City and he had to attend the Court at Ambala on 10th October, 1988 in that case and, therefore, he could not hand over the complete papers to his counsel to file the appeal before the Additional District Judge. On his return to Delhi on 11th October, 1988 he handed over the complete papers to his counsel who filed the appeal on that date itself. Therefore, there has been delay of one day in filing the appeal. According to him, this delay of one day was unintentional, bonafide and beyond the control of the petitioner and, therefore, the Additional District Judge ought to have accepted the oral prayer of the petitioner and condoned the one day's delay in filing the appeal. However, the learned Additional District Judges has not explained any where in the order about this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.