The judgment emphasizes the strict application of the law of limitation and the requirement for providing reasonable and sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing an appeal, as per section 5 of the Limitation Act.

1. Petitioner along with his two brother (Respondents 2and 3 herein) filed appeal, against the order of Niab Tehsildar Kishtwar and Tehsildar Kishtwar, passed in mutation no. 987 dt. 5.8.88 and mutation no. 1378 dt. 19.11.1990, attested under sections 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reform Act 1976 respectively, with regard to land measuring 16 marlas under Kh. No.424/1 situated in village Matta Tehsil and District Kishtwar, before Court below.

2. This appeal was filed before court below on the grounds, that mutations have been attested in exparte. That he was at Jammu in connection with his job for the last 20-28 years. That respondent taking the advantage of the fact, got mutation attested in his favour and has also constructed shops on the land. That land in question was in his personal cultivation in Kharief 1971, but in the year 1981, the patwari manipulated the entries on the name of respondent. That as per Agr. Ref. Act, if the tenant is out of possession of land in kharief 1971, then he has no right on the land in term of section 4 and 8 of the Act. That before changing the entries in revenue records, the mutating Officer is obliged to call owners of land.

3. The Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal. The Court below based his order on the grounds that, total land under khasra no. 424/1 is 1kanal and 16 marlas, out of this land mutations have been attested with regard to 16 marals only. Rest of land 1 kanal is in possession of petitioner herein and his brothers. As such, appellants were having knowledge, so appeal was time-barred, having filed after more than 17 years. Appellant have failed to show sufficient reasons in preferring appeal after limitation time. Court below has also relied upon the affidavit filed by petitioner here in 1977, in which petitioner solemnly affirmed, that land in question was in cultivating possession of Dewn Chand respondent prior to 1971. Court below further held that appellant has attached photocopy of Parat Patwar ( copy prepared by patwari ) and no copy of Parart patwar has been attached. Lastly court held that only present petitioner singed the memo of appeal and application for condo nation of delay, whereas, other brothers did not sign.

4. Heard at length, gone through record. Counsel for petitioner has elaborated all grounds taken in memo of revision petition, whereas respondent counsel has argued that, appeal before court below was time barred and appellant failed to show sufficient reason in preferring appeal after statuary time.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspect of matter and law governing the subject.

6. In present case mutations challenged before the court below were attested on dated 5-8-1998 and 19-11-1990, whereas appeal was preferred on 11-6-2005. As per section 22 of act, appeal is to be preferred within 60 days from order, so appeal was time barred and no reasonable and sufficient reasons have been mentioned in memo of appeal and application under section 5 of limitation act before court below. In application under section 5 of limitation act and memo of appeal, it has been mentioned that, petitioner herein was residing at Jammu for last 20 years. He received Rs. 2000/- from respondent. That in his absence, mutations have been attested and respondent constructed shops on land. He came to know recently from patwari and he received copies on 13.5.2005.

7. Bare perusal of these factual averments narrated, it is evident, and these have been organized and not actually happened. Section 5 of limitation act is enabling provision for preferring appeal after limitation time. Law of limitation has been meant for prudent and diligent person and not for person, who remains silent for long time and approaches court as per his own choice. Sufficient cause, as provided in limitation act is gatherable from facts of case.

8. In present case, facts narrarrted for condoning delay in filling appeal, does not inspire confidence of court. Law is very much clear that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document