BAKSHI RUGHNATH Vs. CUSTODIAN GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER this Bench announced Judgment on 30 -12 -1968 in this case, the learned Additional Advocate General brought to our notice the provisions of Rule 27 (6) made under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which read as under: -

(2.) THIS rule was not cited at the bar at the time of arguments nor were these rules available in the High Court library so that they could be made use of at the time of writing judgment. This rule provides a limitation of 30 days for a review petition. After this rule was brought to our notice, we ordered that the case would be re -heared on the point. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) UNDER this rule 27 (6) of the Rules under the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 2006, as already indicated a period of limitation for a review petition is 30 days. In our judgment of 30th December 1968, we had decided this point on general principles as no period of limitation for a review petition was brought to our notice at the time of arguments Therefore our judgment dated 30th December 1968 stands amended on the point of limitation for review. The application for review before the learned Custodian General was presented after one year and three days. Obviously it was time barred. There was no attempt at getting the delay condoned nor was there any reason given by the learned Custodian General for condoning the delay. Therefore also the order of the Custodian General was bad in the eye of the law and had to be set aside.