IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1074 of 2003 RAM BACHAN KOHAR & ORS Versus TEJ NARAIN SINGH & ORS ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Abbas Haidar & Md.Kamil Akhtar For the O.Ps. : Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr.Ranjeet Kumar. ______ 17. 11.11.2008 For the reasons mentioned in I.A.No. 6242/2008 the name of petitioner no.1, who is said to have died on 21.9.2008, is directed to be expunged and is to be substituted by his heir already on record by way of petitioner no.6. Heard counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 8.4.1992 passed by the District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Title Appeal No. 62/1991 dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. As a matter of fact this civil revision application is also barred by limitation and accordingly I.A.No. 609/2004 has been filed to condone the delay of more than ten years in filing of the civil revision application. The main ground for condoning the delay in the said 2 interlocutory application can be found in paragraphs no. 20 to 22 which reads as follows : “20. That all the revision petitioners belong to the same joint Hindu family of which Ram Nath Kohar was the karta and was looking after the properties and the cases on behalf of all the members of the family. Hence after the said order of the lower appellate court all the members of the family authorized and asked him to move the Hon’ble Court against the said order. 21. That the said Ram Nath Kohar went to Patna and after returning informed the revision petitioners that he had got an appeal filed in the Hon’ble Court. Thereafter the revision petitioners who are in possession of their lands, were satisfied that their case is pending in the Hon’ble High Court. However, after the death of the said Ram Nath Kohar on 15.12.02, the revision petitioners started searching the relevant papers for getting his heirs substituted in the appeal filed in the Hon’ble High Court, but inspite of their best efforts they could not find anything. 22. That in the said 3 circumstances the revision petitioners rushed to Patna in January 2003 and enquiries but they could not get any clue as to whether any such appeal was filed. Hence on the advise of lawyers the revision petitioners applied on 10.2.2003 before the lower appellate court for certified copy of the order dated 8.4.1992, which was made available to them on 13.2.2003, whereafter the instant case was filed in this Hon’ble Court on 8.5.2003.” Normally such statement with regard to a joint Hindu family and its interest being looked after by the karta could have been a sufficient ground for condoning the delay, had this statement been made in a fair and bonafide manner. Unfortunately such statement has only come on account of the fact that Ram Nath Kohar is no longer alive and thus cannot be subjected to test of cross-examination with regard to the facts mentioned therein as quoted above. The cat however comes out of the bag by the statement of the same petitioners who while seeking condonation of delay of more than three years in filing of the 4 appeal before the lower appellate court had specifically taken a plea to the following effect : “3. That the appellant no.1 is the Karta of the family of the appellant and appellants no. 4 and 5 are in Millitory and Police service respectively and in this connection they are living far away from the village. Appellants no. 6 and 7 are the Parda Nashin ladies of the family of the appellants. Appellants no. 2 and 3 are the junior members of the family of the appellants. 4. That the appellant no.1 was fully aware of the facts of the case and one of the members of the family of the appellant was aware with the fact of the case. 5. That the appellant no.1 became ill seriously since 12.5.88 to 25.6.91 and was under treatment of Dr. R.K.Gupta who advised the appellant no.1 to take complete bed rest and on account of paralysis appellant no.1 was not in position to move and to under stand anything. During the period of illness appellant no. 2 and 3 were attending the appellant no.1” It has to be noted that appellant 5 no.1, who is claimed before the court below to be fully aware with the facts of the case and no other family members to be aware with the facts of the case was still alive when this civil revision application was filed (initially as a second appeal) unfortunately before this Court as a delay of more than ten years was sought to be explained, even the Karta of the family changed and in place of petitioner no.1 Ram Bachan Kohar a dead person, namely, Ram Nath Kohar became the Karta of the family. Thus, by the records itself it is absolutely clear that the petitioners have made a false statement before this Court and the delay of more than ten years of filing this civil revision application remains wholly unexplained. Moreover persons like the petitioner who have not approached this Court with a clean hands, are definitely not entitled for seeking the protection of this Court with regard to condonation of delay and that too for a period of more than ten years. This Court having thus found that there is no justifiable cause much less 6 sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than ten years in filing of the civil revision application reject the prayer made in I.A.No. 609/2004. This Court, even on merit would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in as much as the lower appellate court in the impugned order had rightly analyzed the facts mentioned in the application seeking condonation in the appeal, which also was barred by limitation for a period of more than 3 ½ years and such reasons being not vitiated by any jurisdictional error cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this civil revision application being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/