BABE BAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The law is very clear that a person who does not come with the clean hands berfore the Court seeking justice, cannot get justice from the Court.

(2.) An application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay filed by the appellant-petitioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue on th'e ground that the cause which has been shown in the application was not a sufficient cause. It was a false statement made in the appplication by the petitioner that her Lawyer never infromed about the result. The Board of Revenue has clearly found that the petitioner was duly represented by a Lawyer, therefore, she had knowledge of the order passed, which should have been challenged within the stipulated time. Surprisingly, the petitioner emphasized on the fact that the concerned Lawyer was never engaged by her but the same plea was found to be false. The Board of Revenue noticed that there was a signature of the Advocate on the order-sheet which clearly shows that on.5.10.1976, the petitioner was duly represented by a lawyer. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner failed to "prove that she was prevented because of sufficient cause in filing the appeal late before the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in this special appeal by the appellant-petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Goyal vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court committed an error in thrpwing out the petition for condoning the delay and not doing the substantial justice to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner got a very strong case in her favour on merits, therefore, to dismiss the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not at all just and proper. In support of his submission, Mr. Goyal has tried to rely upon the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in 1987(1) RLR 285 , and submitted that this Court may allow the special appeal and directed the Revenue Authorities to decide the case on merits after condoning the delay.