S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 16th July, 1977 by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed as time-barred and not legally maintainable.
(2.) The petitioner Ls the landlady. Respondent No. 3 is the allottee. Briefly the facts are that an allotment order dated 1-11-1975 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of respondent No. 3. This allotment order is the subject matter of dispute in this proceeding. On 19th November, 1975 it is alleged by the petitioner that she came to know of the said allotment order and therefore, an application was made before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for setting aside the said allotment order on that very day. Subsequently, as an abundant caution, the petitioner was advised to file a revision against the allotment order. The revision was filed on 1-12-1975 signed by the counsel of the petitioner. On 2-1-1976, a copy of the allotment order was filed in the Court as when the revision was filed a copy of the allotment order was not annexed with it. When the notice of the revision was served on the respondent No. 3, an objection was taken by the respondent No. 3 that the revision has not been signed by the petitioner and as such, it is not maintainable in law. In view of this objection, an application was made on 8-1-1977 to permit the petitioner to put her signature on the memorandum of revision. The petitioner also moved an application for condonation of delay before the revisional court on 8-1-1977 supported by an affidavit of her husband Manohar Swarup Garg as well as the affidavit of Mahabir Prasad Mittal, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The revisional court dismissed the revision as not maintainable on three grounds. Firstly; that since there were no signatures on the memorandum of revision of the petitioner, the revision was not maintainable in law. The second ground was that since the copy of the allotment order stating the reasons for allotment had not been filed along with the revision, the revision was not competent. Thirdly, the revisional court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the revision as barred by time.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged all the three grounds before me. I have heard Shri R.V. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Jagdisb Swarup, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent.;