Btt^'Q'3)uieHR-"c|e»i3y4S!a ;|t^i^l;|jisi.jet^^'jndseA! .::^.s6eir!A lilltUBpiSsj ^^^•ON :(y3puods3):j ^ ^sjesA s/. inoqe paBe 'puoQ rK4es!g jo ups i.|6uis 4BAAun>f •s ^sjesA £2inoGie^paBe ;pyog LUgy pueuv 3ie-|;o/a leg luuni^i lisjesAgZinoClepsBeipuoE) LUBH pueuV 9:ien o/a !eg eAiiejns ^s.iesA ££anoqe p3Be ipuog luey Rueuy a)e^ jo uos L|Bu!S tjssjns ^sjBSA 4S inoqe psBe 'puoE) luey pl.iei.lV sje-i jo SJIM \<SQ eAiund "('3"3) uoeBpueurey loyasiQ •'uoe6pyeufey ^oio3||03 i|Bno.iL|^ ^jeBspieyio jo aieis •(•3-3) jndse|ig ie ^qjE6s!ueq43 'snusAsy ^o pjeog •f. ^l^ ^ SlN3CTNOdS3S snsyaA '("5"3) uoeBpueutey 43U}sia 'uepeL|>|inL|4:3 listiej. 'saAepueQ •r'a iMBuoa ifeqg sBeiliA jo ^yepissy ^sjniinouBv uoiqednsso /jejew eqnesig Sien jo uos 'sjesA 6^ ^noqe psBe 'uofuv .«< ^ ^ /l^ /^~ . ^v „..—.:... "'/•' INVTiaddV y3NOI.LD.3d 900ZT3Q ^g'y-s 'ON Noij-iiad iiym rs-aj'andsviig^Lw Hyvsisii.i.vHH3=ioiyno3H9iH3iavynoNOH3Mi3yo=i3a "ON s60d ?'-S;3S65@SI" .'•^•' lc3; IW 1@K ft wl l^ll^ ISI; IW li'l'lk ws %? ss^ |eS. 15B' M w IW ~y£s . ^^y •B'i s IZ^w 1>^ [Z. & m; ?3l. ws 13»i 'CRI tff 133' ! 30 7S:. WK ^ ^ 10sw w C1S m w lo^ 1-TI1; l Mi. w 133;t B>Sf Sei'i' ^•^^^ 1-(;w 10-: IW l.i ll"ia;-,..:^:/ ws&' l^:'i?w ISBK&i 1-ICS:B wsw: KS KdSff?: IS)WS:' >'.l%.ri'7 la li-n M \"y:. w. ••'!:»•': ^ 'm ^"^••'w^'71 ^s y'Vf^.t^ ^S(^^!"Bi BtSSBll%aS!@^^g ^^g.S^5^ HltMGCHJI^OFOGWWftT^nSQM^^^B SihQteSeRGh: HOn'bleShri Justice Prashant KUnutr Mishra :€? -tt WritPetition.No. PETn-iaNER Versus RES?30NOENTS yShr!KN,JRa,C6yns8| rthe S^rnt.^rnitaGha^F^LfoT^Ste^ ,Na'3'tb7;.l<':?;;':i::'::^^^:.:;^ WIR^fPETrriO(ilH®Eft^RirSC^22TOFT^ i.84.2) tsaroed eounsei ftir the Coliector'should have aUowed Ns Vti!<^<i^<lismissedforv^trt^of^»G^^u^ the Board of Revenue ah en'or by n<rt alteKSira his <2K|%©R^-04-.t9Sl1heSyb(^ '•l;an..oRfer|®amst;the;p^Oner,m;«xerRiS8^ 170{B)^Gh!iBtti^arhla(K|^ Ft{%t(artea!^iO yate<t1^-(^l9^^null^!^^ie^B- afarthertfireetidnofiswrsiono^igr^iniav^^ petiUohsr prefeiTed|M?|^ :RajnaRs^oF^^,^!t;;^i<a^fijdiSEpiss^^^,^«y^ :^^06-4S^.^^he:':j:^|c^rYfnsxNI-^:aggti!^tW::l%tI^P^^^ 12^6-t9g7«iORgWtN3R AstlorGQndOBation^ SeRti8rt®i»Stl%l;i!'rtitat!on ;TNts;fest9T^iop'^Rlfea<oB'ia?:»?e|tl^Siie;|$S applicaticm for Gohdonation o^ C<^eGtoron 12-10-1^8 <ftnnexuref^byoteeryu^^^^t^ petitioner has not been abte to sxplam the delay in movss^ the restoration applicatioR and thus the apptication for coraion^ioh of delayfSrwrtbORafide. (3) Toi^ter^e Wth® ^ ah appeai betore the Board of E^w^ 'yismi^ed'hsa^eat;"':':.':1 •,'l':,.::'^^ ': 1.. l'.::'~ ''- ': : ;•.. : (4) Having h&ard teained counsel tor the ps*itioner and on psrusa! of the rword mwe partteulariy conients of tiie pstffioner's s^plieatjoR underSeGtion 35(3) oftheCode, 1^9 ftsr restoration and the aKilK;a^n^F condoh^i^ pe^ioner t^ been aMe to (Aeaci arri dems^r^^ bonaTMareasontori^non-a^earancebefore^^^UaleCoiA^^^ iP^itronal Colteetor ori ^-0&-19%w i the SCT>eal was called on for @ The petftsoner is 70 yearsof age andi accoreiing toU sortetrts of the appfcationteffkiavit he te a poor arejl aUteTarte wllager. He had preferrN Ihe ^ea! throi^ Ns tawyerwho did^^n^ <Nes af hearing ortt^fate of N^ receive any infoiTnafiim abQirttheap^^t^stfiya^ Nmself v®ntto the office^of Addfttonat CoUectQr on l2b06-1^S7, ^eraiRhawasiRformedthat^appealhas^^^ ferwarrtofprosecufi Qn%-<^1S^.AGcoFdiFigtothepetttionerlie law^i^FAhteitfSmriicw- ^ -^' ^••i;t; '^•y'vds'sy~i"' i'":'! •^".i^.y^^^ s--:'^''Sa...SSsBS3S n •V; '& y? K movect the restorartion appUcation atoi^ wfth an apptteation under Section 5 ofthe Limitaticm Aet on the sameday i.e. OR 12-06-1997. (6) !n the iTCttter oillnion of ifndte and otters tfe. Jaipal Slngh, poexy 1 scc 121, the Hon'Ne Supreme Court has hekl tiist the expression 'suTRcient cause' mu^ reGeive a taseral con^nKrtfon. in Q. RamegwffSa, jor anrf offiers Vs. Spectef i.aoef Acqufejffotfi Offfs^sr, BsmgfQfeflSSy 2 SCC M2, it has been heU by the Hon'bte SupremeGoUrtthattfteworct'sufficsntcause'shoutelbesoconstituted to aclvancesubstantialjustfee and thedelay shouW be condoned when no gross negIigenGe or deliberate inaction or (aek of bona fides on the part ofthe parties seetong condonatton oT delay. (7) In the opinion df thre Court a paity to a Btgatjon should not be made to suffer adveisety Tor the Enistake^eff tte counsel. Every endeavor should be madeto di^K»eofthe matter on merits if ihe non-appearance is not on account of fi^l^ency or Galtous attftude of the party. Since the petffioner wants to pros^ute Ns appesd and the non-appearance was on ac^ount 6T the mistake oi the counssl, the petitioner shouKl nrt be penalized . (8) tearesult,this writ (wtttionisa^ Boarei of Revenue on (KKi3-3Kffi (Annexure P/1) arri the ofder passed by the Additional Coilector, Rajnaridgaon on 12-10-1%8 (A.nnexure P/5) are quashed. Tte Attd'rtionat Collector, Rajnandgaon shdl now hear and decide the i^ieai preferred by the petitioner on merits. ;1''":' :. ',.:.. ! '. . Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge