S.D.AGARWALA, J. - (1.) BEFORE admission notices were issued. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. The petitioner has challenged the order of 11th April 1986 by the VII Additional District Judge, Agra by which the application of the petitioner moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had passed the order on 7th of March, 1981. Against the said order two revisions were filed, one on 22.4.1981 and the other on 23.4.1981. The ground taken for condonation of delay was that there was a strike by the Advocates in the District Court at Agra and hence the revisions could not be filed within time. This was contested by the respondents.
(2.) IT is not disputed that there was a strike by the Advocates of the district and the Courts also remained closed. It is also not disputed that the revisions were filed only after a couple of days of the passing of the order. The technical view taken by the Court below is wholly uncalled for. In my opinion sufficient cause has been made for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice it was not proper for the Court below to have dismissed the application solely on the ground that each and every day's delay has not been explained. It is not necessary for the Courts while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to consider each and even day's delay an order in all circumstances have to be considered. In my opinion, the order is vitiated in law. In the circumstances the petition is allowed and the order dated 11th April, 1986 is quashed. The application for condonation of delay moved by the petitioner in both the revisions is allowed. The Civil Revision Nos. 87 of 1981 and 89 of 1981 should be treated to have been filed within time. The Court below is directed to restore these revisions to their original numbers and dispose them of as expeditious as possible. Petition allowed.;