GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE SALEM SHAH Vs. AMRU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1676. 1677, 1678 and 1679 of 1989 as the question involved is common in these cases.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed separate suits against Gram Panchayat, Salem Shah for declaration to the effect that they being the lessee/tenants and being in authorised possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right, title or interest therein and as such could not dispossess them in any manner or interfere in their possession. The suit was contested by Gram Panchayat. One of the issues was as to whether civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. However, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 4.4.1985. Aggrieved with the same, the Gram Panchayat filed separate appeals, which were barred by time by six days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay was also filed along with the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge did not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeals as barred by time vide order dated 9.9.1985.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that there is no cogent explanation for re-filing the revision petitions after such a long delay and, therefore, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed as barred by time. He further submitted that the negligence is writ large as the petitioner was negligent in filing the appeal before the Additional District Judge as barred by time and again in this Court. The revision petition/appeal was originally filed on 6.1.1986 but was ultimately re-filed on 9.8.1988, that is, after more than two years, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone.