'tflQW JO NOUniltSNOO 3Hi.jo zzz y ?zz saioixyv yaaNnNOiiiiad iiyM .••'• jndie^i:V>uiS!Q 'efeyns (jeoyiO 6uipiS9Jd)Jep|jsqeiq!BN341 (t? ...^^ .-'^A jndrey -. PU^SIQ ceyedeiB49 uo^nv psquDss.icl) (oaS)-i93!yOieuoiS!Aia94i (g jndiey 'J0p9||00 91J1 jndiey 'ueABLjg -x'a seijiA UILUBJQ '§leAeyouecj Ajepjoss 341 ^Bnojisi 4e6siHBL|i|Oj09}eis (z snsyaA y3NOllll3d ^ndiey-pu^sia 'eSuiis-ljsiiei 'upusd-sBejsiAio luapiss^ sjesA os inoqe pgBy pBAA^ieo usey iij^s-l uys 10 Q^AA pemijjeg leqDjuepu 'itug _NO!1113dliaM ^ -.-.^^^---_.__-^_ )4 ,NndSV^la ly HV9S111VHH3 JO J^lhOO H91H 3H1 N(0 XI-HC-22 'TS? -i<|*tlfl<<, aiaTM' is, Rx'ii'ay Hl*«11 «l«-ll<» SIT^T xra^ _..^..^.^o..:..noc' /6t- VK • WS. 200 ftB^T' ST^lqiT (<;•<[* s^y sSt-ff^ «[?a /-~ ^,:' 3^1 ICTW ^I%CT 17-7-2003 Shri R.S. Jaiswgl, Adyocajte for the petitioner ShriS.P. Bagharia, G-.A. ^r thegtate. Hcard finallv with consenlt. 2. Tfals petitlonunder Articy oTIndia has been filed by tli^ dated 7-8-2003 passed by the application on the ground fhat] 3. Earlicr thc pctitioncr h^a filcd the pctition whcrcin paUector, Raipur rejecting his 1 . . • • • ' . ' jit was barred by tiine. objecdoii was ralsed Fcgai'dui^ Coiirt on 17-6-2002 passed an | from that date the dispute i^ raised, the same shall be decided in accordance with Ia.wf. •I. Counsel for the petitionei) ccrtiflcd copy of thc brder on 4-7-2002 and thereafter, the petltloner Iiad fallen Ul, ther^fore, the dlspute was ralsed before tfae CoUector 6n 19-7-2 cbl^fd-41 T1 TjM?ff^ fe^ ^+$K ^i'3?f:OT3II^t 226/227 of ihe ConsUtutlon petitioner against the order altotiiative rciucdy aiid llus brder thal Ifwlthln two weeks subniits that he coiild obtain )02. He also filed the meclical 1;f'![ftt? ^Ha^ •:% ^.'sSS- XI-HC-22 T°? -41*llc14, 9Til'M'16, RtWl^y aiferw (<<•<[* 311^1 ai^fiqi -4if^T IIICTI axiith 31T^T'q^?_^ /-..«- fo.p.rto- l70?/aoo';- "V% 200 fq^g' aii^r ^iraT^ft? RertificatR. The said dispiite ha time. He also subinitted that tlte of delay could not be filed. Cou4sel fiirther submitted that the thcrc was dclay of only OUG ds butwas bonaflde. He relled on Court m the case of Vedabal i|y s and it was not intentional ^. dectslon of Hon'ble Supreme sS: alias Vailavajitabai Uabiirao Patil -v- Shantaram Babiu-ao P^.tU and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2582. Para 5 of the ju *, ' bclow:- discreUon consulerWon relevc^ttfacti "In. exercdsing Limitation Actthe Caurts approach. A distm.ctibn cCEse where the delay i^ where the delay is'sf'CTf^ former case the other side wUl be a fbr a nmrS!'egatttous no such considercetion deserves atQjeral approc^ can be laid down in this exercise the discretion o?t keeptng in nnnd'thalvi 'su.fflcient cause,' the substantial jusfice is of^ view in. this case, the apf^f mcsy t:ol<tF<n<iii *ii*iciT'^ Fs^ <r^i'^.i< i? aipgir STI^I heen (iismissed-as barred by appUcation for condonation ^gment is relevant and quoted TJtUSt under Section 5 ofthe should ctdopt a pragmatic be made between d m.ordinate and a case ^w days, Whereas m the qf prejudvse to the '^ttfactor so the case cxdls bvtm the latter case arise and such a case 7h Nohardandfdstrule regard. The Caurt has to the facts of each case dpnstnving the expression \prm.ciple of advancing prime •importance. In our rbach of the leamed Ciyil •;[^^1 XI-HC-22 sn^i^i .1^TO73D^I 5^i<S ^lf^i ^ 'ssi -iWt\v\n,®-S\w\s,^»wy. an^yr'q^ . .;".^^^.£...<^.:...1.7&s^oo't- KIKCTI aiW) fa'b<{«T-' Sd^TTOIIW^te erron^ous Judge is wholly unsustainable. Jt is under S. 5 of the Limitatidi Civtl Jud.ge in eontraventu\n this Caurt, that the shmdd receive Uberal c4 decisions. The High in under S. 115 C.P.C. Jurisdictional error ofthe and his—orderis that the discretion \n Act is exercised by the ofthe law lalddown t>y suffident cause ^nstruction, in catena of ^xercising its Jurisdiction failed to eorrect tKe c^ppellate Court.' ' ewcience explfesswn 5. Having thus consldered there was delay of anly one d^ decision in Vedabai (supra), period is extended and it is di^ dul'ected dccidc thc disputc on its own ii|icrits in accordancc with law. 6. Wifhthese'observations, 7. In view of the above,M| 5584/2002 and..!.^. Wo. 6530/^ 8. Certified copy as per rule^ 'bllfyl^l'l tl.lCT 4.fttst <[fflt(K ^ 3]f:giT3Dtg and conslderlng the fact that ISfys and furUier in view of the tijie delay is condoned and the that fhe CoUector shatl ±iepetition is disposed of. W.P. No. 800/2002, I.A. No. ) stand disposed of. sd/ ; ^A