SARVO DEVI Vs. KAUSHLAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP(M) No. 331 of 2014

(2.) THIS application has been preferred for condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the Revision Petition. As per the petitioners, the petition could not be filed within time, as the copy was not applied by the counsel within time and thereafter the delay occurred on account of their being vacations in the Courts.

(3.) IT cannot be disputed that the petitioners does not stand to gain any thing by not filing the Revision Petition within the prescribed period of limitation rather the petitioners always runs the risk of their petition being thrown out only on the ground of limitation without being adjudicated upon on merits. Power to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantiate justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji has held that the expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice -that being the life -purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: -