Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
R.O.R. No.3161 of 1985, decided on 6th February, 1986.
---S.5--Condonation of delay--Delay of 200 days in filing of revision- Non-preparation of decree-sheet pleaded as cause of delay--Petitioners admitting that Copying Agency had advised that since no decree-sheet had been prepared same could not be provided--After such information by Copying Department, petitioners, held, no longer had any justification for delaying revisions--Revisions being time-barred dismissed in limine.
Ch. M.A.Latif Amritsari for Petitioners.
This order will dispose of the two revisions filed against separate judgments /decrees of the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolida tion), Multan, both, dated 3-4-1985, since heard on the common question of limitation.
2. In the applications made under section 5 of the Limitation Act to account for the delay of 200 days in each revision, it has been pleaded that the delay was occasioned due to the fact that decree-sheets had not been prepared by the learned Additional Commissioner and the repeated attempts by the petitioners failed to yield the copies of the decree-sheets. The learned counsel for the petitioners who has been heard in preliminary hearing, however, concedes that the petitioners had been advised on 24-10-1985 and then on 7-11-1985 by the Copying Agency that copies of the decree-sheets could not be provided since such decree-sheets had not been prepared by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan. After this information, the petitioners no longer had any justification for delaying the revisions which were filed in the Court on 12-12-1985. In view of this position, I would find both the revisions as time-barred and dismiss them in limine.
A.A Revisions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer