SATTUR RADHAMMA Vs. KISTAMMA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a revision under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act XXI of 1950) hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. It was filed on 15-1-1958 against the order of the Collector of Mahboobnagar District, dated 21-10-1957. It is seen that the Act provides for a revision within 60 days from the date of the order complained against. The revision having been admittedly filed beyond time, the petitioner would appear to have filed a petition for condonation of the delay (C.M.P. 5295 of 1959). The present C.R.P. and the petition for condonation came up before the admission court and without notice to the other side the delay was condoned and the C.R.P. admitted on 31-7-1959.
(2.) The first point taken by the respondent's counsel is that the C.R.P. is barred by limitation and the delay was condoned without notice to the respondent and as such she is entitled to be heard now that the revision itself is in competent as the delay could not be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent's contention is that section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been applied to the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
(3.) Sri Yunus Saleem for the petitioner has contended that the respondent cannot be heard now in support of her objection and that the proper course for her would have been to apply for vacating the order condoning the delay soon after she had notice of the revision petition on 12-4-1960. He would argue that as she had not moved this court earlier, she is guilty of laches and it is not now open to her to raise the objection at the final hearing of the petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.