HARIHAR DAS Vs. LAKANATH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, 14.82 acres of paddy land being the matter of the dispute had been attached and the Petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Kantilo Gram Panchayat was appointed as Receiver. The proceeding terminated in favour of the first party and in pursuance of the Court 's direction, the Petitioner on 25.10 -1964 restored possession to the first party of the land with the standing crop thereon. The second party preferred revision against that order in this Court and the Court ordered that the previous arrangement should continue. Accordingly, the Sub -Divisional officer appointed the Petitioner as Receiver by his order dated 29 -10 -1964 which was served on him on 6 -11 -1964. By then, the first party bad already cut the crops from about 2 acres of land. Hence the Petitioner was put in possession of the rest of the disputed land measuring about a little less than 13 acres of land on 7 -11 -1964. He harvested the paddy crop standing on that land and then under the orders of the Court made over possession of the land to the A. S.I. of Police. By then mung and biri crops were standing on the land. Thereafter, under the direction of S.D.O., the Petitioner submitted his accounts showing the total yield from 12.82 acres of land to be 56 maunds which according to him, was sold for Rs. 570/ -. He claimed Rs. 349.89p, as cost incurred by him in raising the crop and showed that he had a balance of Rs. (sic) with him. The Sub -Divisional Officer called upon him to explain the accounts. This matter was adjourned from time to time on some ground or other till 5 -10 -1967 when an ex parte order was passed by the S.D.O., who held that the net yield which the Petitioner realised from the 12.82 acres of land was Rs. 9986.00 By a notice served on the Petitioner on 6 -12 -1967, he was directed to deposit the amount in Court. The Petitioner applied on 8 -12 -1967 for a certified copy of the order and supplied folios on 22 -12 -1967. The copy was made ready on 26 -12 -1967 and was delivered to him. On the next day, he filed an application for review before the Sub -Divisional Officer which was rejected after hearing on 22 -7 -1968. Thereafter, on 2 -9 -1968, the present application for revision of the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 5 -10 -1967 was filed. Along with his petition, the Petitioner also filed an application praying for excusing the delay in filing the revision petition on the ground that he was bona fide prosecuting the review application in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer and that the period from 26 -12 -1967 to 22 -7 -1968 should therefore be excluded from the period prescribed under Article 131 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) IT is contended by the opposite party that the revision application is not maintainable and that the Petitioner is not entitled to condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

(3.) THAT apart, the order passed by the learned Magistrate fixing the net yield from a little less than 13 acres of land in Nayagarh subdivision at Rs. 9986.00 appears on the face of it to be very high and it would be unreasonable to hold that after receiving such order, the Petitioner would not have been diligent to get the wrong redressed. In the circumstances, I would condone the delay in filing the application.