JUMA BANGROO Vs. AB RAZAK BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondent in this revision petition about the maintainability of the same. The submission is that no revision would lie against the order condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Abdul Gaffar and ors. Vs. Gavas Singh and others, AIR 1967 Patna 360, Manindra Land and Building Corp. Ltd., Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and others, AIR 1964 S, C, 1336, Hakim Singh Vs. District Judge and others, AIR 1982 Allahabad 108, Gopal Dass and other Vs. Nathulal Baraya, AIR 1983 Rajasthan 222 and Jagdish Chander and anr. Vs. Durga and anr. 1970 J&K L. R. 91.

(3.) IT is submitted that granting or refusing condonation of delay s not a case decided within the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Civil Pr: Code, therefore, no revision is competent. 1960 J&K L. R. 91 (supra) has not given any reason as to why revision would not be maintainable against refusal or grant of condonation of delay. It only proceeds to say "moreover as held in AIR 1914 Mad 149, the order disposing of an application for condonation of delay is not revisable." No reasoning of its own is given by the learned Judge deciding the case. There fore, this observation cannot be said to be a ratio of the authority but is only an abiter dicta.