LAWS(P&H)-1981-5-36

TANTIA DHARAMSHALA TRUST Vs. HAKAM MAL

Decided On May 19, 1981
Tantia Dharamshala Trust Appellant
V/S
Hakam Mal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Sec. 14 read with Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition. The case of the decree holder Applicant is that the Executing Courts accepted the objections of the judgment -debtor on 20th November, 1978. He, under a bona fide mistake believed that the order was appealable, filed an appeal against the order before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, on 20th February, 1979 It came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, on the 17th September, 1980 and he held that the order was not appealable. Consequently, he dismissed the appeal. The Applicant filed a revision petition against the order of the Executing Court to this Court on 8th December, 1980, after obtaining copies of the orders of the Executing Court and the Additional District Judge. It is averred by the Petitioner that if the days during which the appeal remained pending before the Additional District Judge are taken into consideration, then the revision petition is within limitation. In the aforesaid situation, he has prayed that the delay in filing the revision petition be condoned.

(2.) The application has been contested by the Respondent, who has inter alia pleaded that it was the duty of the Applicant to explain each day's delay after the 17th September, 1980, which he has failed to do. It is further averred that thus he is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Sarin that the Applicant filed the appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge bona fide considering that the order was appealable and the office accepted the same. However, it was found on 17th September, 1980, that no appeal was maintainable against the order. He urges that in the said situation, the period from the date of filing of the appeal till its decision by the Additional District Judge should be excluded for the purpose of filing the revision petition in this Court and if that period is excluded, the revision petition is within time. He places reliance on Balbir Singh v/s. Sogh Singh, 1974 PLR. 321.