DULI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in the three writ petition Nos. 2546, 2547 and 2548 are identical and this order will dispose of the said writ petitions. For the sake of convenience we has refer to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 2548 of 1992. Admittedly, the petitioner had been prosecuting his revision petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the impugned order. It is further not disputed that the Deputy Director Panchayats didn't deal with the appeal on merits but dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. An application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed. If the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting the revision petition is excluded, the appeal was filed within a period of 15 days of the expiry of the period of limitation. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner was entitled to the exclusion of the period during which he was bona fide prosecuting the revision petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is settled law that section 5 of the Limitation Act should be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice (See Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR(SC) 1353. We hold the appeal to have been filed in time.

(2.) We, therefore, direct respondent No. 2 to readmit the appeal against its original number and to dispose of the same on merits, according to law. These petitions are disposed of in these terms. Petitions accepted.