- (1.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Sri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amol Ranjan, holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 9, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents and? learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.4.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in revision no. 33 of 2008 -09, order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur in appeal no. 14 of 2007 and order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chunar, Mirzapur in suit no. 4 of 2000.
(2.) VIDE order dated 16.1.2007, the Sub Divisional Officer, Chunar while recalling the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2005 dismissing the suit of respondent nos. 6 to 8 decreed the suit itself. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the present petitioner filed appeal no. 14 of 2007 (Pyare Lal Vs. Payre and another), which was dismissed as barred by time. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present petitioner filed revision no. 33 of 2008 before the Board of Revenue. The revision has also been dismissed by the following order: "Heard Ld. counsel for the revisionist as well as caveator and gone through the order of the ld. Commissioner, Mirzapur Division, Mirzapur. It has been observed that the ld. Commissioner has specifically rejected the application u/s 5 Limitation Act and has given ample reasons for rejecting the same and therefore, this revision petition, being not fit for admission, is hereby dismissed as such in limine." While assailing these orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate court as well as the revisional court have erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by time and the revision as well. In his submissions, the order dated 16.1.2007 was passed ex parte as against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was unaware of the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2007 and when he came to know about the same, he filed the appeal. By that time, the appeal had become barred by time by almost seven months. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that when the petitioner came to know about the order dated 16.1.2007, he obtained a certified copy of the order and handed over the paper to the counsel. The counsel has advised him to obtain the copy of the decree also. Thereafter, application was given to obtain a decree, which was obtained on 10.8.2007. On 11th and 12th August, 2007, the court was closed, therefore, the petitioner went on 13.8.2007 to contact his counsel and there he was informed that the counsel is out of station and he will come on 15.8.2007. It is thereafter, the appeal was filed on 16.8.2007.
(3.) THE appellate court took the view that in the application for condonation of delay, the date of knowledge of the impugned judgment was not disclosed, therefore, the explanation to condone the delay was insufficient.;