- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is a writ petition against the order dated 27th May, 1995 dismissing the revision filed by the landlord on the ground that it is barred by time.
(2.) THE premises in dispute was al lotted to M/s Prem Engineering Works (the contesting respondent) on 13th March, 1994. Against this order of allot ment a revision was filed on 2nd July, 1984. This revision was barred by time and was dismissed by District Judge by impugned order dated 27th May, 1995 on the ground that there is no sufficient cause explaining the delay, hence the present writ petition. Ave heard Sri R. N. Bhalla, Coun sel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Bhatiya, Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner alongwith his revision has filed application under Sec tion 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit for condoning the delay. The reason given by the petitioner for condon ing the delay was that initially he had no knowledge, thereafter he and his Counsel fell ill. The revision was filed after re-open ing of Court after summer vacation. This is a sufficient ground. This is a fact, which was in personal knowledge of the petitioner and was sufficient cause for not filing the revision earlier. The District Judge while dismissing the revision has observed that the allotment order is 11 years old and rent is being accepted by the landlord and so delay should not be con doned. This is not relevant for deciding the application for condonation of delay.
(3.) THUS, in view of this the order dated 27th May, 1995 is quashed. The matter is sent back for decision on merit. The revision is very old one. It may be decided at an early date. With these directions the writ peti tion is allowed. Petition allowed. .;