RAMAPATI Vs. D D C ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BINOD Kumar Roy, J. The petitioner prays to quash the orders passed by different consolidation authorities as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition. Annexure-1 contains the order dated 12. 3. 69 passed by the Con solidation Officer, Bibipur in Case No. 3669. By -the said order five other con nected cases were disposed of. Annexure-2 contains the appellate order dated 19. 1. 69 passed in Appeal No. 2318 of 1969 filed by the petitioner alongwith six appeals. Annexure-3 contains the Revisional Order, dated 21. 10. 75 passed in Revision Nos. 63115, 970, 972 to 976. By the impugned revisional order petitioner's Revision No. 63/115 was dismissed on account of limitation (vide reasons recorded in paragraph 6 ).

(2.) SRI S. P. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the Revisional Authority has committed an apparent error of law in not granting benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner has handed over all necessary papers and fees to SRI Bhagwati Prasad his counsel for filing the revision but his counsel did not file the revision-application. To support these facts the petitioner also filed his affidavit. Though a counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No. 2 but the statements made therein were illegally relied upon by the Revisional Authority inasmuch as they were not in terms of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was not the case of the Respon dent No. 2 that he derived knowledge of the facts stated in the counter affidavit from the learned counsel of the petitioner. Learned counsel strenuously sub mitted that the word 'sufficient cause' has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court, as well as this Court, to be interpreted liberally and to substantiate the cause of justice. The impugned order shows that before the Revisional Authority entire records were and in this view of the matter he ought to have decided the revision of the petitioner on merits and should not have dismissed on limitation. In this context the learned counsel placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation RD 1974 (Supp.) 262.

(3.) THE learned counsel of the petitioner, in reply, contends that nothing has been brought on the record by Respondent No. 4 in his counter affidaivt or otherwise in regard to the non-sufficiency of the cause and accordingly the sub mission of Mr. Dubey as well as Mr. Bhargava should not be accepted.