ROSHAN LAL SALWAN Vs. BIMLA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority in limit as it was barred by time.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for obtaining the certified copy of the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, at the instance of the respondent on 19th February, 1979, i.e. after six days of the passing of the eviction order. The copy was ready with the Copying Branch for delivery on 12th March, 1979. After excluding the time spent in obtaining the copy, the appeal could be filed by 22nd March, 1979 but it was actually filed on 30th March, 1979. The eight days delay which was caused by the petitioner for filing the appeal was sought to be explained in the application for condonation of delay filed with the memorandum of appeal by stating that the petitioner had handed over the attested copy of the order to his wife, who had misplaced it. The learned Appellate Authority did not feel satisfied with the genuineness of this reason and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in presenting the appeal.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the order under revision. A person is expected to act with due care, caution and diligence in the matter of prosecuting the litigation which adversely affects him. If he is guilty of negligence for keeping an eye on the period of limitation and also fails to take appropriate care about the important documents like the judgments and orders against which he has to file an appeal, he cannot crave for the discretion of the Courts to hear his time-barred cases. The law about extension of limitation helps only those persons who take appropriate and due care about their own rights and act diligently. The petitioner tried to take shelter against alleged irresponsible act of his wife in not keeping the proper custody of the attested copy of the Order. On the face of it this plea seems to be untenable for extending the limitation for his appeal.