UDAIVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against Order dated 19th January, 1991, passed by Sessions Judge Jalaun at Orai, dismissing an applica tion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing revision against summoning order. It was unfortunate that despite waiting by the Sessions Judge the counsel of the revisionists did not turn up. Now much need not be said about experience of the Courts regarding availability of the counsel. The affidavit filed shows that revisionist No. 1 Udai Veer Singh is in Army. Revisionist No. 2 Ghanshyam Singh is employed in U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation and is posted in district Etawah. Revisionist No. 3 is a woman case of the revisionists is that they had instructed their counsel because they themselves could not be personally present. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, could be conveniently disposed of by the Sessions Judge concerned even without the aid of the counsel. He could have required assistance of the counsel only if the affidavit accompanying the application did not disclose sufficient facts for condoning delay. I am of the view that at this very stage this revision should be allowed and revisionist should be given opportunity to be heard on merits.

(2.) IN result, this revision is allowed at this very stage. Impugned order is set aside with direction that learned Sessions Judge concerned shall dispose of the application of the revisionists under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on merits within two months. For two months execution of warrants issued by the Magistrate against the revisionists shall remain stayed.