(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the order dated 03.05.2013 (Annexure P -9), vide which the application for condonation of delay alongwith the restoration application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the District Judge, Panchkula.
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that the present revision petition also is barred by 501 days in refiling the civil revision and no explanation was given when the revision was filed but in view of the order passed by this Court, a laconic affidavit has been filed that the file was tagged with some admitted cases of the same village and when the list was being made on 24.01.2015, the case was detected and thereafter, the case was refiled. Though an affidavit has also been filed of the counsel alongwith the said application but this Court is of the opinion that even for refiling, sufficient cause has to be shown and such gross delay cannot be permitted to be wished away in the manner which the application suggests. Admittedly, civil revision was filed on 05.08.2013 and thereafter the refiling was done only on 27.01.2015. Nothing has been shown as how the petitioner at any stage approached his counsel to find out the latest status of the case for all this period. The inaction on the part of the petitioner also to prosecute his case is apparent. This Court in Darshan Singh vs. Surjit Singh, : 2008 (2) PLR 336 has also held that the delay in refiling also has to be explained and sufficient cause has to be shown before this Court can grant the indulgence and reopen the litigation again. In the said case also, there was a delay of 509 days which was not explained and it was observed that undue latitude cannot be given for complying with the objections raised by the office since a maximum period of 40 days is provided for refiling of the cases under the High Court Rules and Orders after placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prithvi Raj vs. Kamal Kanta, : 1980 PLR 155. Similar view was also taken in Krishan Dev Dhiman vs. Mahesh Bhatia, : 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 229. In such circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is not liable to be allowed.
(3.) AS noticed, the revision was filed on 05.08.2013 and objections were raised by the office and was only refiled on 27.01.2015. No apparent sufficient cause has been shown whereby, the petitioner himself approached the office of the counsel to ask as to the latest status regarding his case. It is settled principle that limitation takes away the remedy and certain rights accrue to the opposite side. Courts come to the aid of a person who agitates for his right and not slumbers over the same. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, : 2008 (17) SCC 448, wherein, it was held as under: -