Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the District Judge, Nainital whereby the petitioner's appeal preferred under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been dismissed as barred by limitation and the petitioner's application for condonation of delay has been rejected. The said appeal that should have been filed on or before the 2nd of March, 1998, was delayed by about 1 -1/2 months. The petitioner's contention is that he was suffering from jaundice and, therefore, could not prefer the appeal in time. This has not been believed by the Court below and it has been found that he was prosecuting other connected matters. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IT is not enough to say that a person is ill and attending physician has advised him rest. What has to be shown is that the illness was of an order that prevented the applicant from discharging his normal functions and prevented him from taking legal steps. Nothing of the sort was made out. It is contended that the Court should take a liberal view in the matter of limitation. The Court in my view cannot be so liberal as to make the law of limitation a dead letter. The applicant has to make out a sufficient cause for delay and this requirement cannot be dispensed with by taking a liberal view as contended. In my view there is no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioners be granted some time to vacate the premises in question. I do not find any sufficient cause for this indulgence.;