KESRI LAL Vs. NATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated 2. 1. 62, by which he had been pleased to reject the appeal preferred by the appellant as time barred. A bare perusal of the record of the case, as has been conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent as well, goes to show that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has quite arbitrarily prevented the appellant from producing all his evidence with an observation that he did not think it necessary to record further evidence. He had also decided the question of limitation with the observation that the appellant was not ill for a major part of the period immediately following the pronouncement of the judgment of the learned trial court and that he should not have waited upto the last date for taking steps towards the presentation of the appeal. It has not been, however, held that the contention raised by the appellant that he was ill and unable to move about was false.

(2.) NOW, when the appellant wanted an indulgence under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was bound to decide whether the reasons given by him were correct or not; then he was to decide whether those reasons were "sufficient" or not; and it was only thereafter that a decision should have been taken whether an indulgence under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act could be shown to the appellant or not. So obviously, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has decided none of these points specifically. It is a well settled law that unless there were malafides or any special reasons for holding otherwise, the appellant could not be punished for his not taking any step towards the presentation of the appeal until the last date of the expiry of the period available to him. The obvious reason is that Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act can come into application only when the normal rules of limitation are somehow or other omitted to be followed. It is then and then alone that the question of examining whether there was a "sufficient cause" for the delay in the presentation of an appeal can arise and can be required to be decided. For this purpose, the appellant is entitled to seek an opportunity of proving his case and producing all evidence in that behalf in support of his contention. He cannot be shut out from doing so, as has been done by the learned lower appellate court in this case.