MOHD SAYED ALIAS BABU Vs. SHAHAJAHAN BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONG with this Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887 read with Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code directed against the judgment and decree dated 12. 04. 2002 passed by the learned Judge, Small causes Court, Delhi the petitioner has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 246 days in preferring the revision petition and by this order I shall be disposing of that application.

(2.) THE relevant facts which need to be noticed are that the respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of rent of Rs. 4000/- in respect of first floor of property bearing no. 6859, gali no. 18, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, delhi against the present petitioner. The petitioner-defendant contested the case and finally that suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for rs. 367. 50/- along with interest thereon @ 15% per annum.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 12. 04. 2002, the petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal within thirty days of the passing of that judgment before the learned District Judge. That appeal was, however, withdrawn by the petitioner on 31-3-2003 and then on 5-5-2003 the present revision petition was filed against the same judgment and decree. Since the revision petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation the petitioner also moved an application for condonation of delay of 246 days. It was stated in the application that only on 31. 03. 2003 it came to the light during the course of final arguments before the trial Court on an objection being taken by the respondent herein that the appeal was not maintainable and so the appeal was withdrawn on 31-3-2003 itself and then after obtaining certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree this revision petition was filed. The petitioner has also averred that he preferred the appeal under the bona fide advice from his counsel and so the delay in filing the revision petition was neither deliberate nor intentional. Same submissions were made even during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also cited two judgments of Hon'ble supreme Court which are reported as AIR 1984 SC 1732; AIR 1985 SC 1669 and one judgment of this Court reported as AIR 2003 DELHI 252 in support of his submissions.