Uttarakhand High Court
CLR/49/2023 on 21 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CLR No.49 of 2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. B.D. Pandey and Mr. Bharat Tewari,
Advocates for the revisionist.
2. Mr. P.C. Kandpal and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Sah, Advocates for the respondent.
3. This is Delay Condonation Application IA
No.2/2023 for condonation of delay in filing
the present appeal which is barred by limitation
of 210 days.
4. Learned counsel for the
applicant/revisionist would submit that the
applicant/revisionist could not gather
knowledge of the impugned judgment soon
after its passing; that, as soon as he came to
know about the same he obtained necessary
papers and thereafter due to his family
problems and other personal engagements, he
could not prefer the present revision earlier.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent would
vehemently oppose the delay and would submit
that the delay in filing the instant revision is
deliberate and intentional; that, a RCC case
no.01 of 2012 between the same parties was
also decided ex parte on 05.05.2022 against
which the applicant/revisionist moved
restoration application and regularly appeared
before the court below whereas he choose not
to appear in the present case.
6. Having considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the delay condonation application as well as
the objections filed thereagainst, in the opinion
of the Court, the ground shown for delay does
not seem to be genuine and bonafide.
7. It is admitted case that the
applicant/tenant is running the business of
selling clothes and is a businessman. It is but
obvious that a person in thick of the business
would be well aware of his rights and liabilities
and pendency of the case pending before the
lower court. Therefore, the submission made
by the counsel for the applicant/revisionist is
not believable. As regards the other ground,
which the applicant/revisionist has taken in his
application that he could not file the revision
because of his personal engagement, he has not
stated a single word as to what those personal
engagement were which prevented him to file
the revision well within time.
8. Although the details of other case RCC
case no.01/2012 pending between the same
parties for eviction decreed against the
applicant/tenant, cannot be an evidence here
but same is relevant to bring this fact in light
that, at the same time the applicant/revisionist
was prosecuting other proceedings against the
respondent in respect of the same property. It
shows lack of bonafide on the part of the
applicant/tenant that the counsel appearing for
the present applicant/revisionist in the court
below in the present case was constantly in
touch with him in other case. But here in the
application seeking condonation of delay, the
applicant/tenant has stated that he could not
gather the knowledge of the impugned
judgment on time.
9. In view of the reasons, as stated in
preceding paragraphs, causes and grounds
shown for delay are not bonafide and
sufficient, therefore, the same is not liable to be
condoned. Delay Condonation Application is
hereby dismissed. Consequently, the revision
also stands dismissed.
10. Pending application, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
21.08.2023
Rajni
