N. K. JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS defendant's revision is directed against the order of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali dt. 9. 8. 90 whereby prosecution of defence was closed, as orders were not complied with, by depositing cost as per Sec. 35b C. P. C.
(2.) THIS revision was filed on 2. 1. 91 along with application for Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The notice of this application was issued on 8. 2. 91. Mr. K. C. Samdaria has appeared for the respondent and filed reply to the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act and reply. The petitioner has received certified copy of the impugned order dt. 9. 8. 90, admittedly on 6. 9. 90 but this petition was filed on 2. 1. 91 after 36 days. The only ground has been assigned for condonation of delay that it took some time to take advice and sanction was not received in time. It is true that the procedure is not to penalise the petitioner but to do substantial justice. It is not necessary to prove each days's of delay and court should be lenient in condoning delay. In the instant case the mere allegation of the negligence on the part of administration, that revision could not be filed in time is not sufficient. A perusal of application shows that, there was no averments from whom and on what date petitioner sought advice and further on what date it was sent for sanction and on what day the same was accorded. The petitioner has not been able to give sufficient explanation for condoning delay of the 36 days In view of this I am not inclined to condone the delay and the application u/s. 5 is rejected. In the result, this revision is, therefore, dismissed, as barred by limitation. .;