2006 Supreme(Raj) 225

[Citation : RLW 2006(1) RJ 324]
(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
Bidha Ram Vs. Vishambhar Dayal (Shrimal, M.)
HON'BLE KAMAL NAYAN SHRIMAL, MEMBER;
HON'BLE A.C. SHARMA, MEMBER
Bidha Ram
Versus
Vishambhar Dayal
Appeal/T.A./224/06/Bharatpur, decided on 24.1.2006

Headnote:(a) Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 5 — Condonation of delay — Factors required to be considered while condoning — Held — Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court — Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criteria — Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not distrub such findings — The primary function of the Court is to advance substantial justice to the parties. (Para 7)

       (b) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Secs. 223 and 208, Civil Procdure Code, 1908, Sce. 96(3) Order 43 Rule 1, Order 23 Rule 3 —Compromise of suit — Maintainability of appeal in subordinate appellate Court against the decree passed on the basis of compromise — Held — No restriction imposed by Sec. 223 that appeal shall not lie from a consent decree — No provision similar toSec. 96 finds place in Tenancy Act — According to Sce. 208 provisions of CPC incomsistent with Tenancy Act not applicable — No specific provisions debarring of CPC imposing bar on such decree amended in 1976 by incorporating order 43 Rule 1-A(2). (Paras 8 & 9)

       Appeal dismissed at admission stage.

       "Raj. Tenancy Act, Secs. 223 & 208 - CPC, Sec. 96(3) & O.43, R. 1A(2) - Consent decree passed by A.C. n basis of compromise, held appealable before R.A.A. - 1978 RRD 11, referred - No restriction imposed by Sec.223 that appeal shall not lie from a consent decree - No provision, similar to Sec. 223 that appeal in R.t. Act - According to Sec. 208 provision of CPC inconsistent with R.T. Act, not applicable - No specific provision debarring appeals against consent decrees, exists in R.T. Act. - Even provisions of CPC imposing a bar on such decrees, amended in 1976 by incorporating O. 43 R. 1A(2) - R.A.A. erred in holding that no appeal lay against consent decree - case, remanded for deciding appeal on merits. (Para 8)

       .