SBCWP NO.9549/2007. 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9549/2007. Smt.Kamala Devi Vs. Deputy Secretary Mines and ors. Date of order :- 18/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Bhim Singh Dudi for the petitioner. **** The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to challenge the order dated 3/11/2007 by which his revision petition was dismissed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order dated 19/5/2005 which was challenged in the appeal and revision had not been served on him yet, the impugned-order has been passed treating appeal to be time barred against the aforesaid order. It is urged that the copy of the order dated 19/5/2005 was not received by the petitioner rather it was arranged thus, in absence of its receipt, the appeal could not have been filed in time, therefore, the delay in filing of appeal was required to be condoned taking note of the aforesaid reason. 3) Perusal of the writ petition and specifically Annexure-2 shows that in para 10 the petitioner has stated that the order dated 19/5/2005 was received by him with some delay therefore, he is filing appeal after expiry of limitation but delay may be condoned for the SBCWP NO.9549/2007. 2 reason aforesaid and the appeal may be treated within time limit. The averments made in para 10 are different than what has been urged before me because in para 10 it has not been stated that the order dated 19/5/2005 was not received by the petitioner and was in fact obtained by him by making efforts. The argument cannot be accepted beyond the pleadings or in conflict to the pleading which exists on record. 4) There is an additional ground given in dismissing the revision petition inasmuch as, during the intervening period of the revision, mine was allotted to one Omprakash Jat S/o Chunnilal who was not impeladed as party respondent to the revision knowing about his allotment. The petitioner in that regard urged that vide Annexure-8, the said Omprakash Jat had accepted that the allotment of mine in his favour would be subject to the final outcome of the revision pending before the authorities concerned. 5) Without going in the aspect as to whether Omprakash Jat was required to be impleaded as party respondent or not by the petitioner, the appeal filed was not within the period of limitation and the reason given for condonation of delay was not found to be justified and otherwise now arguments given during the course of hearing SBCWP NO.9549/2007. 3 of this petition, is contrary to the pleading exist in Annexure-2 thus, the same cannot be accepted. 6) In view of above, I find no error in the orders passed by the authorities below. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil