RAM KUMARI DEVI Vs. BHAGIRATH MAL TIBRIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Review Application against the impugned order. The main ground, which has been taken by the petitioner, is that due to wrong legal advice, Title Appeal No. 5/2004 was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Pakur against; the impugned judgment and decree. But subsequently having come to learn that the said judgment and decree was not appealable, he withdrew the said appeal and filed this Civil Review Application. The opposite parties have appeared and filed reply to the petition stating therein that the earlier case was remitted back by the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 1312/1991 and as such the petitioner was well aware about the proper legal course that the judgment and decree is not appealable. According to the opposite parties, the appeal was thus deliberately filed to buy more time and the plea of ignorance is a mere pretence.

(2.) HOWEVER , it is an admitted fact that against the impugned judgment and decree an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Pakur. Subsequently the same was withdrawn and the instant revision application was preferred without any delay. It has been stated on affidavit that the petitioner was misled due to wrong legal advice. I see no cogent reason to disbelieve the petitioners explanation. The interlocutory application is thus allowed and the delay in filing the Civil Revision is condoned. But considering the inconveniences caused to the opposite -party, this order is passed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/ - to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite parties or their counsel within a period of three weeks. Petition allowed.