Haro Singh vs Ajay Kumar Chawla And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 36 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.1.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in which the prayer for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was granted whilst the prayer for damages was rejected. This Revision has been filed on 17.7.2001, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The grounds urged for condoning the delay reads thus:

"2. That inadvertently the previous Counsel of the petitioner approached the appellate Court wrongly for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner/applicant.

3. That though the appeal was filed in time but the same was filed in a wrong Court.

4. That delay in filing the present Revision Petition is not attributed to the petitioner/applicant but due to filing of the wrong appeal filed by the previous Counsel of the petitioner/applicant.

5. That the petitioner/applicant should not suffer for mistake of his Counsel and the petitioner should be heard on merit."

2. The Appeal appears to have been filed on 16.3.2000 and was dismissed on 9.5.2001. Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act is explicit in terms, and states that "No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed". It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how this provision was overlooked.

3. Although sufficient opportunity has been granted, the Petitioner has failed to disclose any jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court. His arguments in essence are in the form of a challenge to the findings reached by the Trial Court but this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction. It is thus beyond the scope of a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC.

4. So far as the condoning of delay is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Madan in Krishan Lal v. Hanuman, . The learned Judge has taken note of previous decisions of this Court as well as the other High Courts, and has crystallised their ratio to the effect that a mistake on account of wrong advice of a Counsel does not constitute sufficient cause. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read thus:

"10. In view of the aforesaid decision, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are sufficient grounds for condensation of delay and in the interests of substantial justice delay deserves to be condoned. Learned Counsel for the respondent has controverter the stand of the petitioner on the ground that there exists no ground for condoning delay in view of the fact that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing his remedy and that he was aware that revision lies against the impugned judgment and decree but instead of pursuing the correct remedy of filing the revision petition had filed appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi with liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the law. He has also contended that the petitioner has not taken any specific objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit under the Specific Relief Act. He has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief, 1963, which deals with suit by person dispossessed without his consent of immovable property. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. Relying on this provision, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that since there is specific bar to the filing of appeal from any order or decree, the same should not have been filed and, therefore, in the absence of 'good faith' and 'sufficient cause' which has not been specifically mentioned in the application for condensation of delay, the present application is not maintainable. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on in the case of Babu Ram v. Devinder Mohan Kaura and Ors., AIR 1981 Delhi 14, Kankala Gurunath Patro v. Dharu Patro, and Jagannath Prasad v. Sant Hardasram Sevashram and Ors., . The ratio of the said decisions is that the mistake on account of wrong advice of a Counsel does not constitute sufficient cause and good faith in absence of disclosure of the basis of the mistaken legal advice which should enable the Court to see whether the advice tendered was bona fide or reckless.

11. The law has undergone tremendous change subsequent to the aforesaid decisions. The Courts are expected to adopt liberal approach in such like matters where condensation of delay is prayed for, in the interest of substantial justice rather than strictly adhering to the technicalities. In this case no mala fide has been alleged or attributed against the petitioner. On the contrary the petitioner has placed reliance on the supporting affidavit of the Counsel who filed the appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi wherein it has been contended that the appeal was filed under bona fide belief as the same was maintainable and no sooner he realised his bona fide mistake, the said appeal was withdrawn from the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi with liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the law."

5. The observations contained in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors., do not apply to the facts of the present case since the Revisionist is not the State but a private individual.

6. It is a uniform practice that in the event that a particular Bench does not agree with the view of a Coordinate Bench, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench. This has not been done in Krishan Lal's case (supra). I would prefer to follow the view of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogeshwar Dayal in Babu Ram v. Devinder Mohan Kaura and Ors., AIR 1981 Delhi 14 and of the other High Courts which is to the effect that the Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that the wrong advice was given bona fide. No sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. No complaint has been filed against the Advocate who purportedly gave the wrong advice. Section 6 itself expects expeditious and speedy relief which cannot be frustrated by adopting a liberal approach. In any event no jurisdictional error has been disclosed.

7. The Petition is without merit and is dismissed.