NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NARMADA CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THIS revision has been filed under Section 19 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 after 123 days of the expiry of the limitation. The State has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [m (C) P. No. 3232/2001] to seek condonation. Reply has been filed by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed great reliance on the amendment made in Section 19 in August, 2005. Learned Counsel for applicant submits that now, since the provision itself confers power to condone the delay, since the Court is considering the application after the amendment, the delay can be condoned under the said provision.

(3.) THE Civil Revision was filed in 2001 and admittedly, at that time, there was no provision in Section 19 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam providing for condonation of delay. In Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal construction Co. 2003 (2) Weekly Note 152, it was held by this Court that Section 19 does not permit or empower condonation of delay and, therefore, if the revision under Section 19 is not filed within time prescribed therefor, the revision is not maintainable. This case was considered by the Supreme Court innagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. 2004 (11) MPJR 374 and approved. Later, in a Full Bench judgment in M. P. Electricity Board v. Pandey Construction Co. 2005 (2) MPLJ 550, Section 19 of M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam was considered in the context of Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 29 (2) thereof and it was held that revision application under Section 19 filed by an aggrieved party beyond the period of three months was barred and the delay cannot be condoned in such cases.