VINOD KUMAR BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition seeks supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the final order of Board of Revenue whereby revision of the petitioner has been dismissed in limine at the very outset for being time barred. The Board of Revenue has held that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanying the revision petition does not disclose the material particulars necessary for establishing the bonafide reasons for delay.

(2.) It appears that the revision was dismissed on the very first hearing and impugned order does not disclose that any opportunity of filing a proper application under Section 5 of the Limitaton Act was afforded to petitioner.

(3.) The Apex Court in cases of Dinbandhu Sahu Vs. Jadumoni Mangaraj and others, AIR 1954 SC 411 and thereafter Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 since being followed till date has discussed elaborately the concept of sufficient cause while dealing with prayer for condonation of delay and has held that the same should receive liberal construction to advance the cause of justice especially when no negligence inaction nor want of bonafinde is imputable to the appellant. The Court has also held that while filing a petition with delay the litigant never benefits and therefore no malafide should be imputable to the litigant unless the delay is unconscionable. The relevant portion of judgment of the Apex Court in Dinbandhu Sahu (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: