Nandi Verdhan Jain Vs. Chander Kanta Jain & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No. 663 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5959 of 1999
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5959 of 1999
Petitioner: Nandi Verdhan Jain
Respondent: Chander Kanta Jain & Anr.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No. 663 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5959 of 1999
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5959 of 1999
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & V.N. KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2000
Head Note:
LIMITATION
Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 – Delay – Condonation – Delay of 394 days for review – Original petition disposed of on 5.4.99 after hearing Counsel – Ground that petitioner was unable to understand as to what to do – Even on merits, Will held to be not proved and High Court did not intervene – SLP dismissed summarily – No apparent error. Held that petition is dismissed on grounds of delay as well as merits.
(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. 394 days’ delay is not satisfactorily explained. The only ground tried to be made out in the application for condona-tion of delay is that the petitioner was not able to understand as to what to do and had been taking advice from various persons. It has to be kept in view that when the special leave petition
was dismissed on merits on 5th April, 1999 by us, petitioner’s advocate, Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey was heard. It is, therefore, obvious that the learned advocate was available to him to advise him as to what to do. Even that apart, we have gone through the merits of the review petition. We do not find any error, muchless any patent error, in the order sought to be got reviewed. All the Courts below have concurrently held that the Will relied upon by him is not legally proved. The High Court in second appeal, therefore, has refused to interfere, obviously because there was no substantial question of law for invoking High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That order got confirmed by summary rejection of the special leave petition. It discloses no error, muchless any patent error of law. The review petition is therefore, dismissed both on the ground of not satisfactorily explained gross delay of 394 days as well as on merits.
1. 394 days’ delay is not satisfactorily explained. The only ground tried to be made out in the application for condona-tion of delay is that the petitioner was not able to understand as to what to do and had been taking advice from various persons. It has to be kept in view that when the special leave petition
was dismissed on merits on 5th April, 1999 by us, petitioner’s advocate, Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey was heard. It is, therefore, obvious that the learned advocate was available to him to advise him as to what to do. Even that apart, we have gone through the merits of the review petition. We do not find any error, muchless any patent error, in the order sought to be got reviewed. All the Courts below have concurrently held that the Will relied upon by him is not legally proved. The High Court in second appeal, therefore, has refused to interfere, obviously because there was no substantial question of law for invoking High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That order got confirmed by summary rejection of the special leave petition. It discloses no error, muchless any patent error of law. The review petition is therefore, dismissed both on the ground of not satisfactorily explained gross delay of 394 days as well as on merits.
