JAGDISH CHANDRA WADHWA Vs. VIITH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2005-1-216
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 12,2005

Jagdish Chandra Wadhwa Appellant
VERSUS
Viith Addl. District And Sessions Judge And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mukteshwar Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.A. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agrawal holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record carefully. This petition was filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.9.1989 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C. and E.O.) and order dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know for the first time on 18.2.1992 about the order of allotment passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer when the police personnel arrived there and prior to that he had no knowledge of the order of allotment. After having come to know about the order, he obtained a certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and then moved an application for revision before the District Judge under section 18 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 along with application under section 5 of Limitation Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the relation between two brothers (Surendra Kumar, elder brother of the petitioner and petitioner) was strained and no notice was served on the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. He, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the real brother of the petitioner moved an application for review of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and both the brothers had full knowledge of the order of allotment. However, they maintained' silence and did not file any revision before the District Judge. Moreover, it is not correct to say that the petitioner had no knowledge prior to 18.2.1992 and Revisional Court rightly rejected the application moved under section 5 of Limitation Act.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance ort the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Kuppuswamy Gownder : AIR 1987 SC 1354 : 1987 (13) ALR 92 (Sum).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.