SAIYAD KAMAR ALI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No.10370/13, petitioner's application for condoning the delay in filing the present petition for restoration of writ petition No. 6805/06, which has been dismissed on account of non - compliance of the peremptory order dated 3.7.2006 directing the petitioner to cure the default within the prescribed period.

(2.) Petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record, by referring the averments of the aforesaid I.A. said that, the aforesaid writ petition was filed in relation to Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act 1976. There was some default in such writ petition on which vide order dated 3.7.2006, the petitioner was directed to cure the default within the period of three days, but due to mistake of the counsel, the same could not be cured within the stipulated period. So, in the lack of any intimation from the counsel, the alleged default could not be cured by the petitioner within the prescribed period, resultantly, the petition was dismissed in the aforesaid manner. In continuation he said that, due to mistake of the counsel the petitioner should not be penalized and aforesaid cause may be treated to be sufficient cause and in such premises, by allowing the I.A., the entire delay in filing the present petition be condoned.

(3.) Without filing any reply of such application in writing, the averments of the same are seriously disputed by the State counsel saying that whatsoever cause stated in the I.A., for condoning the long delay of 2581 days, could not be treated to be sufficient cause as per requirement of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and prayed for dismissal of the I.A.