RAM SWAROOP Vs. SMT. REOTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is by Ram Swaroop. Whether it is time barred ?

(2.) The order of Board of Revenue is dated 19-8-1991. Review is filed on 10-2.1993. There is delay of 18 months or thereabouts, under Art. 124 Limitation Act the prescribed limitation is 30 days as is held in 1960 ALJ 124 and affirmed in Division Bench : 1982 and in 1987 R.D. 320. What is the explanation ? It is said that appellate counsel Sri Prakash Chand had not informed them of any development. Even the date of final hearing was not told. The judgement of court suggests something more better could have been done, had they been apprised of things. OF final judgement they become aware of through rumour in village on 8-2-1993. Soon enough, he visits Allahabad, the inspection of court file leading to confirmation of a dread fear. This is the preferred reason in sworn affidavit for the delay of 18 months. We are unimpressed. We cannot believe and act upon extremely generalised excuses; this because we cannot prove them to be untrue. Such an explanation can facilely be put forth in any run-of-the-mill case and to account for delay of any length of time. The account should and must be unencumbered with vague and generalised excuses. There in nothing unique and particular in the explanation to characterise by marking a separate time by a separate reason for the whole period of 18 months. Whether there is a continuing obligation of appellate counsel to inform each date of hearing ? How to be sure enough appellant did not know of courts order ? Shri Prakash Chand Advocate will neither affirm nor deny. All. C. J. 1993 S. C. 819 says an Advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the party who engaged him. There is no absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate, at any time and seek relief. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The appeal was ably argued on all points of substance the world of law and the world of fact has been fully traversed. What something more better could have been done ? The generalities are followed by what is imprecise and inarticulate. Nothing is structured in idea to give the explanation a definite point and concrete actuality.

(3.) The counsel for applicant in review refers to 1994 R.D. 61 to say that every court has inherent jurisdiction apart from statutory jurisdiction to correct any error committed by itself. He says in words of Mr. Justice R. M. Sahai J. in JT 1993 (5) S. C. 27 :