M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 1 -8 -1990 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad whereby he has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner as barred by time. There was a delay of 30 days in filing the revision and according to the respondent No. 1 the delay was not explained nor was the conduct of the petitioner bona fide, therefore, he refused to condone the delay, as a result of which the revision also got dismissed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the other side. They have denied the averments of the writ petition and stated that the petitioner very much knew that the District Judge was the revisional authority, therefore, it would not lie in his mouth to say now that he was not aware as to whether revision would lie before the District Judge or not. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's conduct has not been free from suspicion. He had filed a revision petition earlier, which was dismissed. According to the respondents the petitioner wants the proceedings of ejectment suit stayed, for which he filed many applications. One of such applications was rejected previously and the revision against the order of rejection was also dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner has relied on an authority of the Supreme Court Collector, Anantnag v. Katiji : 1987 (55) FLR 609 (SC), in which it has been held that technical and pedantic view about Section 5 of the Limitation Act should not be taken by the courts. The courts have been directed to take liberal view so as to advance cause of justice. It is held by the Supreme Court that by condoning the delay liaise to be decided on merits and nothing beyond that can happen, if the delay is condoned, and if the delay is not condoned the controversy is shut out at the very inception which may cause miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner's conduct has not been bona fide inasmuch as he has not explained the delay properly, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of condonation of delay nor can he derive any benefit from the Supreme Court authority referred to above. It is stated that on the similar grounds previous revision petition was filed, which was dismissed, therefore, the petitioner was not well advised to state that he was not aware that the District Judge had the power to entertain the revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.;