1. Respondent-Krishan Kumar instituted a suit on 17.10.1995 in the court of Sub Judge, Doda for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner-Corporation to give employment to his son, namely, Bansi Lal in Class-III/IV category, on the ground that, the Corporation acquired the land measuring 9 kanals 3 marlas at Khellani for their use on 15.07.1985, whereafter Food Corporation of India constructed a Godown on the said land.

2. Notice was served upon the defendants but no body put in appearance and the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 5 CPC were taken and defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. After recording ex-parte evidence, suit was decreed. Petitioner-Corporation filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte decree. Alongwith application, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. Learned Sub Judge, Doda after considering objections of respondent, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as a result of which application under Order 9 Rule 13 was also dismissed being not maintainable. Thereafter, Food Corporation of India filed Civil Revision No.56/97, which came up for hearing on 24.12.1997 and the following order was passed :-

During the course of hearing of this revision petition, it transpired that the present revision petition is not maintainable. Faced with this situation, Mr. J.R.Arora learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this revision petition may be disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for such relief to overcome the decree, which has been passed against his client, as may be permissible under law.

In view of the aforesaid position, this revision petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. However, such dismissal will not be a bar to the petitioner for approaching the appropriate court for such relief as may be permissible under law. Subject to this, revision petition is dismissed.

3. The petitioner-Corporation filed appeal, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Doda and same was dismissed on 08.04.2003. After dismissal of the appeal, the Food Corporation of India sought opinion from their counsel whether it is a fit case for filing revision. After perusing the file, Mr. W.S.Nargal counsel for the appellant opined that it is not a fit case for filing revision.

4. The petitioner remained silent for 660 days and with the change of officers and counsel again a decision was taken to file the present revision petition. Alongwith memo of revision, application for condondation of delay has been filed on the following ground, which has been referred in paragraph No.3 of the application:-

3. That the petitioner did not file the revision petition in time as he was advised by the counsel of FCI that there was no sufficient grounds for filing a revision petition against the order impugned. The applicant/petitioner acted upon the advice of his counsel, so given by him on 06th of August, 2003.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown by the party. The words sufficient cause have not been defined. Sufficient cause would indicate only a cause or causes, which prevented a litigant from doing a certain thing for reasons for which he is not to be blamed. The delay can be condoned for the advancement of substantial justice but delay has not to be condoned when the same will cause hardships to the other party. The delay is also not to be condoned when a litigant is negligent and intentionally and deliberately has not filed the appeal or revision.

6. In the instant case as noticed above, after the disposal of the appeal, petitioner-Corporation sought opinion from their legal advisor Mr. W.S.Nargal, Advocate. He gave the following opinion:-

Kindly refer to your communication dated 21.07.2003 by virtue of which your office has desire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document