JAGDISH Vs. MODULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case is time barred by 495 days. The revision petition was filed initially without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but later on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The ground for delay shown in the application is that the petitioner does not reside at the place of dispute, but resides at a far off place in another State for the last 15 years and he did not receive any information regarding the decision of the appeal from his lawyer. On such a specious ground, the delay cannot be condoned. Though a party is not expected to attend every date of hearing fixed in the case in an appeal but he cannot be absolved from the responsibility to get himself apprised about the progress on each and every date of hearing of the case. Not to take any information from his own lawyer and not to bother about the case for 495 days, can hardly be said to be a diligent prosecution of the appeal. It is not a case where dates were not fixed for hearing of the appeal like in the High Court. In the lower Courts, dates are given even for hearing the appeal.

(2.) THE application for condonation of delay in filing revision petition is rejected and consequently the revision petition is dismissed as time barred. Revision dismissed.