LAWS(MPH)-2022-4-20

OM PRAKASH Vs. RAMLAKHAN SHARMA

Decided On April 21, 2022
OM PRAKASH Appellant
V/S
Ramlakhan Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed assailing the order dtd. 12/7/2021 passed in Case No.411/20-21/Appeal by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, Division Gwalior, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on account of being time barred.

(2.) The facts in brief to decide the present petition are that an application for partition in respect to the land in question bearing Survey Nos. 272, 273, 275, 276, 735, 754, 755, 22, 28, 47, 55 situated at Village Ravar, Circle Morar, District Gwalior was filed by the respondents before Naib Tehsildar, Uteela. Tahsildar vide order dtd. 31/12/2018 allowed the application and ordered for partition. Against the order of Tahsildar, petitioners filed an appeal before the S.D.O (Revenue), Jhansi Road, Gwalior, District Gwalior, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 19/8/2019. Against the order of the S.D.O., appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior on 29/6/2020 along with an application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act, which was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order impugned and the appeal was also dismissed as being time barred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order impugned is perverse and is against the settled principles of law. He has further argued that the petitioners are villagers and their counsel Shri N.D. Sharma, who was appearing before the S.D.O., ensured them that their personal presence is not required before the Courts and he would inform the petitioners when the order is passed in the appeal. However, petitioners' counsel Shri Sharma fell seriously ill and on account of illness, he died on 25/1/2020 and could not inform the petitioners about the order passed by the S.D.O. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Additional Commissioner has not considered the above circumstance and committed grave error in rejecting the application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act as well as the appeal filed by the petitioners vide impugned order and the same deserves to be set aside.