SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(J&K) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mufti Baha-ud-Din Farooqi, J.
Jani - Appellant
Versus
Agha Qasim Shah - Respondent
CMP No. 216/1981 And 217/1981
Decided On : 16 October, 1982

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Rashid Ali Dar
Advocate For Respondent: M.A. Nehvi

The court may condone the delay in filing a revision petition if the petitioner's mistake regarding the applicable period can be styled as bonafide.

Headnote:

Limitation - Revision - The High Court Rules prescribe a period of 90 days for filing a revision in the High Court. The limitation Act. by Art. 181 prescribes three years period for filing a revision. The court allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing the revision petition on payment of costs.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, arguing that he believed the period applicable was three years instead of the prescribed 90 days.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's mistake in believing the period applicable was three years can be styled as bonafide, and allowed the application, condoning the delay in filing the revision petition on payment of costs.

Issues: The issue was whether the delay in filing the revision petition should be condoned due to the petitioner's bonafide belief regarding the applicable period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the bonafide belief of the petitioner regarding the applicable period and allowed the application for condonation of delay.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application, condoning the delay in filing the revision petition on payment of costs.

1. The High Court Rules prescribe a period of 90 days for filing a revision in the High Court. The limitation Act. by Art. 181 prescribes three years period for filing a revision,

2. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he bonafide believed that the period applicable was three years, as he was of the opinion, that in view of Section 122 C. P. C. the High court was not competent to prescribe a shorter period. He has no doubt, missed the source of authority under which the High court has acted in framing its Rules and prescribed a special period of limitation. But taking over-all view of the matter, the mistake can reasonably be styled as bonafide. I, therefore allow this application, and condone the delay in filing the revision petition on payment of Rs. 25/- as costs. The costs shall be paid within two weeks. The application shall be filed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top