J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1676. 1677, 1678 and 1679 of 1989 as the question involved is common in these cases.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed separate suits against Gram Panchayat, Salem Shah for declaration to the effect that they being the lessee/tenants and being in authorised possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right, title or interest therein and as such could not dispossess them in any manner or interfere in their possession. The suit was contested by Gram Panchayat. One of the issues was as to whether civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. However, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 4.4.1985. Aggrieved with the same, the Gram Panchayat filed separate appeals, which were barred by time by six days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay was also filed along with the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge did not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeals as barred by time vide order dated 9.9.1985. Aggrieved with the same, the Gram Panchayat originally filed Regular Second Appeal in this Court on 6.1.1986 which was within time. However, the same was returned on 11.1.1986 as to show how regular second appeal was competent. The same was re-filed on 31.5.1986. It was again returned on 2.6.1986 and re-filed on 19.12.1987. It was again returned on 4.1.1988 and re-filed on 9.8.1988. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in re-filing the appeal which was later on entertained as Civil Revision the plea was that the brief got misplaced. All these petitions were admitted on 17.2.1989.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that there is no cogent explanation for re-filing the revision petitions after such a long delay and, therefore, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed as barred by time. He further submitted that the negligence is writ large as the petitioner was negligent in filing the appeal before the Additional District Judge as barred by time and again in this Court. The revision petition/appeal was originally filed on 6.1.1986 but was ultimately re-filed on 9.8.1988, that is, after more than two years, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone.;