Basawaraj & Anr v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent No.1.

2.In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with.

3.This revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), District Hardoi in Case No.333/2023 by which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the revisionist in support of application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The relevant part of the order dated 03.12.2024 is extracted below:- ययचच कक अधधवकय नक अपनय तकर पत लककर आयय हह, रखतक हहए कहय हह वक पयरर/ववपकच धजससक उसक ययचच कक धयरय-128 दणड पकषण कय खचयर न दकनय पडक और वयद कक कययरवयहच एकबयर "ववपवकयय/ जयनबबझकर यह पयररनय- पवकयय ससवहतय कक तहत भरण- वफरसक शशर हक जयए। र ( एस०सच० 1506 ए०आई०आर० 2012, मकरक दयरय ववधध वयवसरय आवफस आफ चचफ पकसट मयसटसर आफ जनरल बनयम लचववसग कय अवलककन मचवडयय इणणडयय लचवमटकड, वकयय गयय, धजसमम मयननचय उचचतम नययययलय नक यह वववनणशवत वकयय हह वक जहयस ववलमब कय ककई समशवचत कयरण न वदयय गयय हक तक ऐसच पररणसरवत मम ववलमब कमय हकनक ममतक दयरय एल०आर०) यकगय नहह हह। इसच पकयर ववधध वयवसरय लसकय वमकटकश वलर बनयम सटकट आफ आनध पदकश ए०आई०आर० 2011 एस०सच० 1199 Wherein the Hon.ble Supreme Court had held that the condonation of delay is a discretionary power and it should be exercised reasonably when there is paucity of proper reason, the Court should not exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay. इसच पकयर ववधध वयवसरय ववधध वयवसरय CIVIL APPEAL No 6974 of 2013 & 6975 of 2013 Basawaraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 मम यह वववनणशचत वकयय हह वक- The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not ववपकच कक वयद कक पबरच जयनकयरच रच। पयरर/ acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. पत मम वनणरय वदनयसवकत 02-07-2022 कक उलकखनचय हह वक पयरर दयरय अपनक पयररनय- वकससक जयनकयरच हहयच ऐसय ककई सयकय/तथय जयनकयरच अफवयहन हकनय बतययय गयय हह, उसकक दयरय नहह दशयरयय गयय हह। पयरर कय यह करन दशयरतय हह वक यह सवचछ हयरथ सक नययययलय मम नहह आयय और उसकक मसशय मयत पयधररनच कक परकशयन ३० पकरनक कक हह तरय खचयर दकनक सक बचनक कक हह। पसतशत मयमलक मम पयरर/ ववपकच कय उदकशय वकसच तरह सक ययचच कक परकशयन करनय हह और उसक खचयर दकनक सक बचय रहक एवस वयद कक लमबक समय तक लणमबत रखक। पयरर/ ववपकच सवचछ हयरथ सक नययययलय कक समक नहह आयय हह और उसनक ववलमब कक वदन पवतवदन कय ककई समशवचत सपषचकरण नहह वदयय हह। उसकय पयररनय- आदकश पयररनय- 4.From perusal of the record, it appears that Misc. Case No.155/2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2017 by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 which was decided ex parte on 02.07.2022. It is not disputed that all through out since 2017 the revisionist did not appear before the trial court although the service was effective upon the revisionist through publication on 16.09.2019 still the revisionist kept absconding however, when 128 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated against him on 15.03.2023, it appears that before the service of any process under Section 128 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has moved an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. पररसचमय अधधवनयम वनरसत वकयय जयतय हह।" पत वनरसत वकए जयनक यकगय हह। अनतगरत धयरय-05 पत 03 अ,

5.While moving application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in support of the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., it appears that revisionist has not stated anywhere as to how he came to know about the ex parte order dated 02.07.2022. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order has rightly observed that revisionist was watching the proceedings right from the beginning and at the moment when the proceedings under Section 128(2) Cr.P.C. were initiated, the revisionist within matter of days has filed the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act however, he has not disclosed as to how he came to know about the ex parte order. It has been rightly observed by the learned trial court that he was watching the proceedings and, therefore, has opined that he has not approached the court with a clean hand and neither has assigned any sufficient reason/cause by which he was prevented to approach the court on time and thus, has rejected the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 and therefore, the criminal revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent No.1.

2.In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with.

3.This revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), District Hardoi in Case No.333/2023 by which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the revisionist in support of application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The relevant part of the order dated 03.12.2024 is extracted below:- ययचच कक अधधवकय नक अपनय तकर पत लककर आयय हह, रखतक हहए कहय हह वक पयरर/ववपकच धजससक उसक ययचच कक धयरय-128 दणड पकषण कय खचयर न दकनय पडक और वयद कक कययरवयहच एकबयर "ववपवकयय/ जयनबबझकर यह पयररनय- पवकयय ससवहतय कक तहत भरण- वफरसक शशर हक जयए। र ( एस०सच० 1506 ए०आई०आर० 2012, मकरक दयरय ववधध वयवसरय आवफस आफ चचफ पकसट मयसटसर आफ जनरल बनयम लचववसग कय अवलककन मचवडयय इणणडयय लचवमटकड, वकयय गयय, धजसमम मयननचय उचचतम नययययलय नक यह वववनणशवत वकयय हह वक जहयस ववलमब कय ककई समशवचत कयरण न वदयय गयय हक तक ऐसच पररणसरवत मम ववलमब कमय हकनक ममतक दयरय एल०आर०) यकगय नहह हह। इसच पकयर ववधध वयवसरय लसकय वमकटकश वलर बनयम सटकट आफ आनध पदकश ए०आई०आर० 2011 एस०सच० 1199 Wherein the Hon.ble Supreme Court had held that the condonation of delay is a discretionary power and it should be exercised reasonably when there is paucity of proper reason, the Court should not exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay. इसच पकयर ववधध वयवसरय ववधध वयवसरय CIVIL APPEAL No 6974 of 2013 & 6975 of 2013 Basawaraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 मम यह वववनणशचत वकयय हह वक- The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain to the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not ववपकच कक वयद कक पबरच जयनकयरच रच। पयरर/ acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. पत मम वनणरय वदनयसवकत 02-07-2022 कक उलकखनचय हह वक पयरर दयरय अपनक पयररनय- वकससक जयनकयरच हहयच ऐसय ककई सयकय/तथय जयनकयरच अफवयहन हकनय बतययय गयय हह, उसकक दयरय नहह दशयरयय गयय हह। पयरर कय यह करन दशयरतय हह वक यह सवचछ हयरथ सक नययययलय मम नहह आयय और उसकक मसशय मयत पयधररनच कक परकशयन ३० पकरनक कक हह तरय खचयर दकनक सक बचनक कक हह। पसतशत मयमलक मम पयरर/ ववपकच कय उदकशय वकसच तरह सक ययचच कक परकशयन करनय हह और उसक खचयर दकनक सक बचय रहक एवस वयद कक लमबक समय तक लणमबत रखक। पयरर/ ववपकच सवचछ हयरथ सक नययययलय कक समक नहह आयय हह और उसनक ववलमब कक वदन पवतवदन कय ककई समशवचत सपषचकरण नहह वदयय हह। उसकय पयररनय- आदकश पयररनय- 4.From perusal of the record, it appears that Misc. Case No.155/2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2017 by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 which was decided ex parte on 02.07.2022. It is not disputed that all through out since 2017 the revisionist did not appear before the trial court although the service was effective upon the revisionist through publication on 16.09.2019 still the revisionist kept absconding however, when 128 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated against him on 15.03.2023, it appears that before the service of any process under Section 128 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has moved an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. पररसचमय अधधवनयम वनरसत वकयय जयतय हह।" पत वनरसत वकए जयनक यकगय हह। अनतगरत धयरय-05 पत 03 अ,

5.While moving application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in support of the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., it appears that revisionist has not stated anywhere as to how he came to know about the ex parte order dated 02.07.2022. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order has rightly observed that revisionist was watching the proceedings right from the beginning and at the moment when the proceedings under Section 128(2) Cr.P.C. were initiated, the revisionist within matter of days has filed the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act however, he has not disclosed as to how he came to know about the ex parte order. It has been rightly observed by the learned trial court that he was watching the proceedings and, therefore, has opined that he has not approached the court with a clean hand and neither has assigned any sufficient reason/cause by which he was prevented to approach the court on time and thus, has rejected the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 and therefore, the criminal revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench