LAWS(PAT)-1988-4-13

PARSURAM SINGH Vs. UMESH SHARMA

Decided On April 27, 1988
PARSURAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
UMESH SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application arises out of an order dated 13-12-1984 passed by Shree K.C.Prasad, Additional District Judge, Vth Court, Gaya, in Letter of Administration Case No. 9 of 1977, whereby and whereunder, the learned Court below raised the valuation of the suit for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed thereto from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 89, 700/-.

(2.) This application was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. By an order dated 7-9-1987, this Court directed that the question of limitation be also considered at the time of the hearing of the civil revision application. It appears that after the impugned order was passed on 13-12-1984, the aforementioned suit was dismissed for default on 19-12-1984. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for restoration which was registered as miscellaneous case. The said application was filed on 18-1-1985 which was allowed, by an order dated 16-8-1985. After the restoration of the aforementioned suit, the petitioner has filed the instant application on 17-10-1985.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has relied upon Mahant Goswami Krishnadevanand Ramji v. Mahant Kapildeo Ramji reported in AIR 1942 Pat 251 and submitted that the practice of this Court is not to entertain any civil revision application after the expiry of 90 days. In my opinion, in view of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the said decision cannot be relied upon by me. It is now well settled that a rule of practice cannot be exalted in a rule of limitation vide Santimay Dey v. Suraiya Properties (P.) Ltd. reported in (1978) 4 SCC 159. Recently the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantang v. Mst. Katiji reported in (1987) 1 Lab LJ 500, has categorically held that S.5 of the Limitation Act enables the Court to do substantial justice disposing of the matters on merits. It was further held that "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serve the ends of justice.