IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14236 of 2010 1. MOST. SANJHA DEVI W/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 2. RAM AVTAR MAHTO S/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 3. KUSHESHWAR MAHTO S/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 4. RAM PARIKSHAN MAHTO S/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 5. RAM CHANDRA MAHTO S/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 6. SMT. MUNESHWARI DEVI D/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 7. SMT. JAMUNA DEVI D/O LATE BASU DEO MAHTO R/O VILLAGE/MOUJA- TEGHRA, TOLE- THARHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, MADHUBANI 5. JANAK THAKUR S/O LATE DASAI THAKUR R/O VILL.- TEGHRA TOLE, TUALHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 6. SUKH DEO MAHTO S/O LATE SITA RAM MAHTO R/O VILL.- TEGHRA TOLE, TUALHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI For the petitioners : Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gauri Shankar Thakur, Advocate ----------- 7 05.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the revisional order dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent Commissioner, Darbhanga Division in L.C.R. No. 14/2009. The application was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Said order reads as under: “Heard the petitioner on the point of admission. He could not explain the delay in filing the revision. He stated that there was delay in getting the certified copy but this fact was not substantiated by any evidence. It appears that the delayed the filing of requisites. Hence delay is due to the petitioner. Thus this petition is time barred. Hence it is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 appeal bearing Appeal No. 9/2009-10 was disposed of by the respondent Collector on 5.12.2009 (Annexure-3). Requisition for obtaining certified copy was filed on 10.12.2009. It is stated at the Bar that the same was notified on 2.2.2010 for submission of requisite folios which were furnished on 3.2.2010 and the certified copy was made available on 10.2.2010 and within 12 days the revision was preferred. It is the submission of the petitioner that having regard to the aforesaid facts appearing from the record, the revision was not barred by limitation. It is next contended that even if there was some delay in filing the revision application, the authority ought to have condoned the delay in the interest of justice and decided the revision on merit since the revisional court is the final court of fact. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that no application seeking condonation of delay was filed along with the revision application. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. A cause normally should not be thrown to winds on the ground of limitation. From the materials on record, it appears that close to two months was consumed in taking steps for preparation of certified copy of the order dated 5.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there is some delay, the petitioner would be filing an application for condonation within four weeks from today in the aforesaid revision application. 3 Having regard to the said stand of the petitioner and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the respondent Commissioner will consider the said application and permit the petitioner to pursue the revision preferred by the petitioner and decide the same on merit in accordance with law. Aforesaid procedure, in my view, would sub-serve the cause of justice. Let the petitioner approach the revisional authority within four (04) weeks from today alongwith copy of the present order. The order impugned dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure-4) passed in L.C.R. No. 14/2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga for fresh disposal in accordance with law.. The application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )