MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, opposite parties 2 and 3 and the State both on the limitation matter as well as the merit of the case.

(2.) It appears that though this revision application was time barred but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court on 8.8.2001 when notice was issued to the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised an objection that without passing any order on the limitation matter notice could not have been issued. In my view, this objection is not sustainable.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the limitation matter, I am satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay in filling the revision application. Accordingly, delay is condoned.