Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) IN CM 1017/91, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. In order to decide this application it is necessary to narrate some facts.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his father Nirmal Singh, came in occupation of the disputed premises in September, 1947. The property in which the premises are located was transferred in favour of respondent No. 1 on the basis of a certificate of sale issued by the Custodian Department on 28. 8. 1961. On the strength of this certificate, title of respondent No. 1 was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar on 21. 8. 1961.

( 3 ) A petition for eviction was filed by respondent No. I against Nirmal Singh seeking his eviction under Section 14 (l) (a), (c) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was dismissed on 10. 2. 1981. Appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1 before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. In the meanwhile, Nirmal Singh expired and the 645 appeal of respondent No. 1 was also dismissed on 8. 2. 1981. 4. Respondent No. 1 on 3. 2. 1983 filed a civil suit claiming a decree for possession against the heirs of Nirmal Singh alleging that they had no right to hold back the property. All of them were termed to be trespassers since according to respondent No. l they had no right to inherit the tenancy rights. Decree for mesne profits was also claimed. During the pendency of suit, a statement was made on 14. 2. 1985 by the counsel for the heirs of Nirmal Singh admitting the claim of respondent No. l and praying for passing of adecree for possession and mesne profits. A prayer was also ,made for giving some time to vacate. Case was adjourned for consideration. Ultimately-on the basis of the statement dated 14. 2. 1985, a compromise decree was passed on 1. 5. 1985 in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the heirs of Nirmal Singh who were allowed a period of three years to vacate the premises. The decree also provided for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. l3. 00 p. m.

( 5 ) A fresh civil suit was preferred on 24. 2. 1986 by the legal representatives of Nirmal Singh praying for a decree for declaration that the decree obtained by respondent No. l in the earlier civil suit No-58/83 was a nullity. It is not disputed that this civil suit has since been dismissed as not maintainable.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. l preferred a petition seeking to execute the decree dated 1. 5. 1985 passed in civil suit No-58/83. During the pendency of that execution petition, objections under, Section 47 were preferred by the petitioners on number of grounds. The same were dismissed on 6. 4. 1990 by the executing court. Against dismissal of the objections, petitioner preferred an appeal on 20. 4. 1990 before the Senior Sub Judge. On respondent No. 1 raising an objection as regards maintainability of the appeal the petitioner preferred instant revision petition against the order dated 6. 4. 1990 dismissing the objections filed under Section 47 of the Code. The revision was preferred on 6. 4. 1991. Along with the revision an application under Section 5 read with Section 12 of the Limitation Act was also made seeking condonation of delay. Though the application has been preferred under Section 5 read with Section 12 of the Limitation Act, counsel for the petitioner has rightly conceded that the application ought to have been filed under Section 14 of the Limitation. Act and prayed that it may be treated as such. Provisions of Section 5 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act are not appliable in view of the specific provisions of Section 14. Accordingly the application is treated to be one filed under Section 14 of the Act. 646

( 7 ) IT is stated in the application that it was under an erroneous impression that an appeal was preferred on 20. 4. 1990 in the court of Senior Sub Judge whereas the remedy of the petitioner lay in preferring a revision petition in this court which actually was preferred on 6. 4. 1991. Delay which has occurred in fili

Click Here to Read the rest of this document