INDRASHAN SHARMA Vs. PREMA RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. 2752/87 in CR (R) 745/87. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the limitation for filing a revision petition in a case like the present one is three years and not 60 days and, therefore, there is no delay in filing the revision petition. He further submitted that assuming the limitation is 60 days, even then there was sufficient reason for not filing the revision petition in time.

(2.) From the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay I find that the petitioner could not file the revision petition earlier because the certified copy of the order was taken by another tenant in the same property. This other tenant has vacated the premises and settled the matter with the respondent-landlady and, therefore, he did not part with the certified copy of the order. The delay which has occurred, therefore, appears to be bona fide and not deliberate and the same deserves to be condoned. The application is thus allowed. C.R. (R) 745/87 & CR (R) 544 & 574/87

(3.) Since a very short point is involved in these revision petitions both the learned counsels for the parties agree that the revision petitions should be disposed of today itself. 222