Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Others vs Hira Lal Sarraf on 7 January, 2010
Author: Krishna Murari
Bench: Krishna Murari
Court No. - 4 Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 40 of 1992 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Hira Lal Sarraf Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Misra Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
In view of the office report dated 22.10.2009, service of notice of the delay condonation application on the respondent is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the applicants. This time barred civil revision has been filed by the State of U.P. against the order dated 22.05.1992 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent for ejectment and arrears of rent. Order sheet indicates that notices were issued on 20.11.1992 on Section 5 application, but respondents could not be served. Fresh steps were issued in pursuance to the order dated 28.08.2009, but again contesting respondent is unserved. It is to be taken note of that the civil revision has remained pending for 18 years without there being any interim order staying the execution of the decree. The explanation submitted for delay in filing the revision is that on receiving the photostat copy of the judgment and decree and the opinion of the DGC in the office of the Director, Horticulture and Processing, Lucknow on 08.07.1992, the matter was referred to the Government for necessary instructions on 13.07.1992, and thereafter, the Directorate received a letter dated 23.07.1992 for filing revision. It is further alleged that some official came to Allahabad and contacted the Chief Standing Counsel on 25.07.1992 and he was asked to bring the certified copy of the judgment and decree. It is further stated that certified copy of the judgment and decree was received in the office of the Directorate on 07.08.1992. A perusal of the certified copy goes to show that an application for the purpose was made on 28.05.1992 and the copy was ready on 29.05.1992 and it was delivered on 30.05.1992.
There is absolutely no explanation in the affidavit with respect to the period between 30.05.1992 and 07.08.1992. It has further been stated in the affidavit that matter was again referred to the State Government and instructions were received on 17.10.1992 and thereafter the official came to Allahabad on 28.10.1992 and the file was allotted to some Standing Counsel and the civil revision along with an affidavit and Section 5 application was dictated on 07.11.1992, but the official went back to Lucknow and again came to Court on 16.11.1992 and thereafter the revision was presented on 18.11.1992.
A perusal of the aforesaid facts clearly goes to show that the explanation submitted is vague and not satisfactory. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that each and every date for delay is not liable to be explained.
There is no dispute that every day has to be explained, but equally well settled is the proposition that explanation submitted for delay should be plausible, reasonable and must inspire confidence, which unfortunately is lacking in the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the revision is not liable to be condoned. Section 5 application, accordingly, stands rejected.
Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, the civil revision also stands dismissed.
07.01.2010 VKS/ C.R. (40)/92