MOHINDER KAUR Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26 -3 -1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, in C. M. P No. 179 -S/6 of 1989. By the impugned order learned Court below rejected the petition of the present petitioner filed under Order 41, Rule 19 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Heard learned Counsel for the parties,

(2.) From the impugned order, it appears that the petition was dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation. It is stated at the Bar that the delay in filing the petition was only one month. That apart, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that suit for eviction was affirmed by this Court, decree was executed and the respondents are in possession of the house. Against that decree a suit was filed, which was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed for default. Therefore, the above petition under Order 41, Rule 19 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed.

(3.) I may refer to a decision of the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v, Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SG 1353. The apex Court observed that though the apex Court has a liberar approach regarding condonation of. delay, but the message does not appeal to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy Six principles were laid down by the apex Court. The said principles are as follows ; "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.