IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH AT BILASPUR wan PETITION (227) Noé)@Z ‘ ;%/2010 IN THE MATI'ER 0F: PETITIONERI APPELLANT Chin’ta Ram, S/o Shn’ Konfc Singh Thokur, Aged aboufloyears, R/o Industrial Word, P.O. -Dhamtori, Disfricf- Dhamfan‘ (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NO.‘l / REsPONDENT No. '1 / 1. The Estate Officer, South East Rauwoy Management Compound, W.R.S. Cotony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT NO.2/ RESPONDENT NO. 2 2‘ Union of India, Through Chief Manager, South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / B : Horu’bié $hri Marlinrira Mohai 29—04-2010 Mr. mum Singuax, 1 , counsei for t.e p titioner. ‘Ms. r Naushin-a Aii, counsel for 1'e$p ndems 0:1 advance copv uncier histmctions from Shri Amit ChauéuEari, Standing caunse} for I spandents. By this petition, unc‘ler Article 227 the cons‘citurion of fnéia, petiticner has assaihad legiity and valiéity of orcier dated }8/‘03/2 0 by which the petmoner‘s appeai under Seciian na m JR1e ?ub1ic Premises (Eviction of unaut} orized occupau® Act, 1971' (for shun dle Act of i97‘x“) has beerl dismissed as barred.‘by ‘* 1.. of learned counse; m; J16 petitioner is ihat View Gf iha provisiorxs contamed wider Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of iimiiation ts to be reekomd from the date of pubiication of the order under Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 f the Act ‘” 1971. It is submitted that mougi’r the order was passed by the Estate Of‘deer 22/081’68, the same was effixed as required by Section 5 of $ub-Seedon 1, oniy on 3ft 08. He therefore su‘omits that the period of . imitation wouid commence only from E/G9 C8 and not before that. It is suemitted that the appeal was initially fried on 12/09/08 befor the District Judge, liaipur but later on District Judge, Raipur “ride its order dated 231’09XO8 ‘ Shrivastav ....n- litation. Learned counsel fai the peddener akes Wm fo‘nd su’a'missions. The fusi suumission If- med the appeal With iiberty to file the same before the District Judge, Dhamtari wherear r the appeal was presented on 241’09r‘38 before the District fudge, Biwntari The second miSSion of teamed counsel for the petitioher though assuming t rt there was deiay in f1 the appeal, as the petitioher had also moved arr application under Section 5 of the Lhuit-atlor Act, 1963, by way or” abundant caution learned Court below was obliged to consider ‘ re sa Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 also relied upon the iudgmem of Allahabad High Court in the ease of Parma Nand Singl Vs. Distrlet Judge, Mirzapur and others, AER 1988, 264. e respondent is that the perusal of impugned , r order would show that the District Judge. R- ‘pur returned the appeal on 23/03I'09 whet-after [the efo'fi Submission of learned counsel for S r] J. a. ‘ G 1‘ " ‘ “) ’ e ‘ ‘o ? m . l a 1 XI-HCv 22 . ...:A..>.£@a1:laz:o.zzaa) m WW H) mmanm ‘ «Q - WW §TF€ER the appaai wa$ flied befare the ieamec‘i Cml appeai was not filed wifmn the perio& 0f 1imi€ that the {immg of {he learneci Cami below t? suffer from any ermr much iess an mar app iiable to be disml3$eé. A pemsai of impugnecl order shows was fiied Witlu'n the period of iimitation iiiisdirectw itse1f. A Eaare perusal of Sectiol requircu “A o»o be fiied Within 12 days fmm th aDaemon ~. , 1 1 o;n oection a 5. However, in the considerh’lg the case of the petiiioner has con pa$sing of the ordar withom taking hm) con Seciion 9 of Sub—Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1§ The facts of the case are that iniriaji Raipur. Later on, the same was retameé an was 'hot taken imo consideration Mor ... . .1 Lo. beiow afier deiay of 2G ddya and theiefore 1t Ls suB11otteé $1 the. appea} was barred ‘oy limitation doe$ not arani on the record and meiefore the etition is a ”W mien “oresm'iied under the law. that while considermg a$ to whether the appeai ‘or not, ieamed Cour; beiow ms completeiy x9 of Sub-Seciion 2(a) shows that me appeai is e date of puoEc-ation of i313 oréer moor Suh- entire order, ihe karncd Court bciow While muted tho period of Hmitation from the dato of "ideration the Smutory provisions contamed in I the appeai was fiied before the District iudge, resented before the Court beiow. This aspect of l 7 rl e abundant caution, haé mov‘cu an applieat condonatioo of delay, if my, in firing the app appeai is barred by limitation there is condomstion of deiay. The order does not oetitioner in the application for conoonation Show that any satisfaction has been recorded t in View of the above discussion, th same is therefore set aside. Learned Court be taking into consideration the statutory provis of the Act anti pass appropriate orders in a the Additionai District fudge (FIG), Bham‘ awn . p that the petitioner, by way under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for a}. Th0“ i the impugied order records that the consideration of petitioner's appiication for er’ieet that any of the grounds raised by the deiay were considered. The order does not rat the cause shown for deiay is not sufficient. impugned order cannot be sustained and the ow shah reconsider the entire matter afresh, by 5 contained in Section ‘9 of Sub—Section 2 (a) danee with law. Parties s} ii “i on w‘i‘ M it ap ', p zcig/ av p i n‘ c i f n r