DAYARAM Vs. GANIKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against an appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 4.8.1954, in a case relating to correction of entries in the Land Records.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of this appeal on the point of limitation. The application for a copy of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 4.8.54 was submitted on 6 8-54. The appellants received it on 20 8-54 and presented the appeal on 18.11.54. Excluding the time spent in obtaining the copy, the appeal is found to be beyond limitation by one day, The appellants were bound to show that sufficient cause within the meaning of sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act existed for this delay. It was incumbent upon the appellants to make a specific mention of this fact in the memorandum of appeal stating the grounds on which they sought condonation and to move the court to condone the delay. This was not done. As a matter of fact when the learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection regarding limitation the appellant's counsel maintained that it was within limitation. On counting the days from the dated of the order up to the presentation of appeal, the counsel for the appellants, however, conceded that there was a delay of one day in the presenta-tion of the appeal. It was at this stage that an application for condonation was submitted without any affidavit. The allegations contained in this application are vague explain the delay satisfactorily. As observed by Rajasthan High Court in (1951 R.L.W. 303, Seth Naoratan Mal vs. Han Singh, "it is the duty of an appli-cant praying condonation under sec 5 to explain each day's delay satisfactorily and if he failed to do so, he cannot get the benefit of sec. 5". The appellants are therefore, not eligible for the benefit of these section and the appeal is bound to be dismissed on the point of limitation.