CHANDRA KANT Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent Counsel is not present inspite of the list having been revised. Counter-affidavit was filed on some earlier date on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(2.) THIS petition challenges the order dated 20-10-2005 restoring the suit after granting the delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) OTHERWISE also the discretion exercised by the trial Court for permitting condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is not to be usually disturbed by the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction unless it is found that exercise of discretion was wholly on untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. In Balakrishnan v. Krishnamurthy, JT 1998 (6) SC 242, the apex Court in such matters has propounded as below : "it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. "