JANKI PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. RAM KRIPAL PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in making the application for review of a judgment of this Court.

(2.) During the course of the argument, it appeared to me that this was really not a case for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. I pointed out to Sir Sultan Ahmad that the application really turned on the interpretation of section 14 of the Limitation Act. If the case could come within the purview of section 14, the application would be in time, and, the petitioners need not have taken recourse to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act: if, on the other hand, the case did not attract the provisions of section 14, it will be necessary for the petitioners successfully to bring the case within the purview of section 5, as will presently appear.

(3.) The facts relevant to the present application are stated below. On the 10th of May, 1949, this Court delivered the judgment. On the 8th of June, 1949, the decree of this Court was sealed and signed. On the 14th of June, 1949, an application was made to this Court for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. This application stood dismissed on the 25th of January, 1950. On the 25th of February, 1950, an application for special leave was made to the Supreme Court, which rejected the application on the 9th of May, 1950. The application for review of judgment was made on the 19th of July this year, just on the re-opening day after the long vacation. It will be observed, on a reference to the dates aforesaid, that, if the time occupied in prosecuting the application for leave to appeal in this Court and for the special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court were excluded, the last date for making the application for review of judgment would fall during the long vacation, and that, therefore, the application presented on the 19th July, 1950, would be in time.