- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's revision was barred by limitation. A was also filed, which was rejected, on the ground, that the reasons for each days delay had not been indicated by the petitioner. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two revisions were filed against the same order, one by his father and one by himself and that the appeal of the father was allowed whereas the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Further, the Court finds that it is not necessary for the petitioner to explain every days' delay. It is sufficient if plausible explanation is given explaining the delay. If the petitioner is directed to explain every day's delay then the Court will also require the petitioner to explain every hour's delay or every second's delay. Such approach of the authority is perverse.
(2.) A general approach should be considered while considering the Section 5 application and if a plausible explanation has been given, the same should be accepted. In the instant case, the delay is for the period of 4 months, which has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order rejecting the revision, on the ground of delay is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the authority to consider and redecide the revision on merits.;