Labh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. Milkhi Ram (Dead) Thru Lrs.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No.1497 of 1999
SLP(C)No. 1926/1991
Petitioner: Labh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Garg
Respondent: Milkhi Ram (Dead) Thru Lrs.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No.1497 of 1999
SLP(C)No. 1926/1991
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI & S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 11, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL / LIMITATION LAWS
Review Petition – Delay – Condonation – Delay of 3128 days – Though delay was attributed to ill health petitioner having joined duty in March 1992 after recovering from operation of brain, delay from that time to the filing of review in October 1999 not having been satisfactorily explained petition held to be barred by limitation. Held on merits the concurrent findings being that petitioners possession of disputed premises was not proved on record and that being a finding of fact no interfer-ence called for.
Review Petition – Delay – Condonation – Delay of 3128 days – Though delay was attributed to ill health petitioner having joined duty in March 1992 after recovering from operation of brain, delay from that time to the filing of review in October 1999 not having been satisfactorily explained petition held to be barred by limitation. Held on merits the concurrent findings being that petitioners possession of disputed premises was not proved on record and that being a finding of fact no interfer-ence called for.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The delay of 3128 days in filing this review petition is not at all satisfactorily explained. The review petitioner has stated in his application seeking condonation of delay that he was suffering from brain tumour and was operated upon 13.09.1991. He himself has also stated that he remained under treatment thereafter upto 27.3.1992 and then he joined his official duties at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. If that is so, the time taken by him in filing the review petition after 27.03.1992 till October, 1999 is not at all satisfactorily explained. This review petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. However, even on merits, we have considered the review petition and the connected records. We find that there is no patent error demonstrated by the review petitioner which calls for our interference in the review proceedings. The Courts below have concurrently held that the review petitioner’s possession of the disputed premises was not proved on record. It is a pure finding of fact, which resulted in a decree of injunction against him. Consequently, his special leave petition was dismissed on merits. This review petition is, accordingly, dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.
1. The delay of 3128 days in filing this review petition is not at all satisfactorily explained. The review petitioner has stated in his application seeking condonation of delay that he was suffering from brain tumour and was operated upon 13.09.1991. He himself has also stated that he remained under treatment thereafter upto 27.3.1992 and then he joined his official duties at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. If that is so, the time taken by him in filing the review petition after 27.03.1992 till October, 1999 is not at all satisfactorily explained. This review petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. However, even on merits, we have considered the review petition and the connected records. We find that there is no patent error demonstrated by the review petitioner which calls for our interference in the review proceedings. The Courts below have concurrently held that the review petitioner’s possession of the disputed premises was not proved on record. It is a pure finding of fact, which resulted in a decree of injunction against him. Consequently, his special leave petition was dismissed on merits. This review petition is, accordingly, dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.
