CHANDRASEN JAYANTI PRASAD Vs. PADMA KAPIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of learned District Judge, Sirohi dated 15.12.1995 by which he set aside the order of learned Munsif Abu Road dated 3.3.1993.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at the admission stage of the revision petition and have gone through the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason given by the tenant that she did not know about the order for 8 months was unconvincing. He submitted that the learned appellate Judge had committed jurisdictional error while condoning the delay and thereby allowing the appeal. He cited 1995(1) RLW 50 : 1995(1) RCR 451 (Raj.), Jai Narain v. Satya Narain, wherein it was held that unless delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the tenant deserves no sympathy. He also cited, 1994(1) WLC 623 (Raj.) Banshi @ Banshidhar Agarwal v. Laxmi Narain, wherein it was observed that the ground for condonation that lawyer did not inform petitioner about date of hearing and of passing of impugned order was not convincing and the petitioner ought to have been vigilant himself and revision petition was disallowed. He also cited AIR 1987 SC 1073, Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. State of Gujarat, wherein law about precedents was explained and it was held that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically followed from it. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case the reasons given by the tenant are not convincing and the learned appellate Judge has committed error of law in condoning the delay on unconvincing ground.