TRILOKI NATH TRIPATHI Vs. CANARA BANK, DORANDA, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This Civil Revision application has been filed against the order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 109 of 2006 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) IT appears from the said orders dated 13.1.1995 and 29.11.1995 that petitioner was given liberty to file appeal against the final decree in which he could raise objections, raised by him, to the amount of interest calculated in the modified decree. Thus, it was his duty to keep track of preparation of final decree, if he wanted to file appeal. His explanation that he was waiting for preparation of final decree cannot be accepted. Petitioner had made a bald and vague statement that he came to know on 28.1.2002 that the final decree was passed on 11.11.1998, without disclosing as to how and from what source he came to know about preparation of final decree. It is not possible to believe that the petitioner had no knowledge about the preparation of final decree in 1998. Thus, the appeal filed by the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation, if not for about seven years and seven months, at least for more than three years for which there is no satisfactory explanation. It is true that a liberal approach is taken in condoning the delay, but it is also true that the petitioner was required to explain the long delay to the satisfaction of the Court. There is no explanation for the delay from 11.11.1998 to 28.1.2002. The explanation for the delay after 28.1.2002 is irrelevant.