Honble SHETHNA, J.–The law is very clear that a person who does not come with the clean hands before the Court seeking justice, cannot get justice from the Court.

(2). An application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay filed by the appellant petitioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the cause which has been shown in the application was not a sufficient cause. It was a false statement made in the application by the petitioner that her lawyer never informed about the result. The Board of Revenue has clearly found that the petitioner was duly represented by a lawyer, therefore, she had knowledge of the order passed, which should have been challenged within the sti- pulated time. Surprisingly, the petitioner emphasized on the fact that the concerned lawyer was never engaged by her but the same plea was found to be false. The Board of Revenue noticed that there was a signature of the Advocate on the Order-sheet which clearly shows that on 5.10.76 the petitioner was duly represented by a lawyer. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that she was prevented because of sufficient cause in filing the appeal late before the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in this special appeal by the appellant petitioner.

(3). Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Goyal vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court committed an error in throwing out the petition for condoning the delay and not doing the substantial justice to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner got a very strong case in her favour on merits, therefore, to dismiss the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not at all just and proper. In support of his sub- mission, Mr. Goyal has tried to rely upon the judgment of Single Bench of this Court reported in 1987 (1) RLR 285 (1) and submitted that this Court may allow the special appeal and direct the Revenue Authorities to decide the case on merits after condoning the delay.

(4). It is no doubt true that when the substantial justice and technical consid- erations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. If the application for condonation was rejected on any other ground then, this Court would have certainly interfered with such order and directed the Board of Revenue to decide the case on merits after condoning the delay but, the facts of this case are so peculiar which disentitle the petitioner to get any order from this Court also.

(5). Before us one more argument has been advanced by learned counsel Shri Goyal which was not even raised before the learned Single Judge namely, the Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, was not authorised to appear before the Board of Revenue and the concerned Advocate had not even filed his power on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Single Ben- ch of this Court at Jaipur Bench reported in Smt. Bhani Vs. Mahaveer Prasad (2), it was submitted that the delay should be condoned and the matter be remanded to the Board of Revenue by directing it to decide the case on merit afterr condoning the delay. We do not understand how Smt. Bhanis case would be applicable to the facts of this case. In this case where initially the petitioner has come out with the case that she was not at all knowing about passing of the Order. When she came to know she appeared before the Board of Revenue with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At that time it was not pleaded that the concerned Advocate was not authorised to act on her behalf. It was only when the Board of Revenue stated t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document