- (1.) This Court on 22.5.2012 has passed the following order. Shri Manu Saxena, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 25.5.2011, passed by respondent No. 4 in Revision No. 1819 (LR) of 2010-11 is perfectly illegal, as the delay has been condoned without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without there being any application for condonation of delay. In his submission, in view of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if there is no limitation provided, the limitation would be three years. In his submission, the respondent No. 1, herein, ought to have filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The revisional Court, without issuing the notice as required under Order XLI, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) to the other side, could not condone the delay. In his submission, it is settled that the delay condonation application can be rejected by the Court if there is no sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. In no case, it can be condoned without there being any notice to the other side. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel submits that under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) no limitation is provided and the applicant can only explain the delay, even if in view of Article 137 the revision has been filed after three years. Put up this matter as fresh day after tomorrow, i.e., on 24.5.2012. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
(2.) Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has today invited attention of the Court towards paragraph 195 of the Revisional Court Manual which is reproduced hereunder:
(3.) In his submissions the procedure for filing revision under Section 219 of the Act, would be like the procedure for filing appeal against the decree/order. He has also contended under Section 214 of the Act, the limitation for filing appeal is 30 days, and, therefore limitation provided under Section 214 of the Act shall also be made applicable in the case of revision pursuant to paragraph 195 of the Revenue Court Manual. He has further contended that in view of paragraph 176 of the Revenue Court Manual, provisions contained in Order XLI, Rule 3A would be applicable meaning thereby, if a revision is filed beyond prescribed period of limitation then that should be accompanied with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for extending the period of limitation, and in view of the aforesaid provision, if the Court is satisfied that there is no sufficient explanation for condonation of delay, it can reject the application for condonation of delay but it cannot condone the delay without issuing notice to the respondent and hearing other side on the question of limitation.;