IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1781 of 2005 MAHENDRA PATEL Versus DILIP KUMAR MISHRA & ORS ----------- 9 7.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the District Judge, Vaishali rejecting his prayer in a limitation petition for condoning the delay of more than seven years in filing of the appeal and consequently dismissing his appeal to be barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that true it is that the appeal was filed after seven years with a limitation petition but then it was also accompanied with a medical certificate and therefore the Court below has committed an error in rejecting such limitation application and thereby also dismissing the appeal. This Court had examined the contents of limitation petition produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but in such limitation application which runs into only five paragraphs, there is no mention at all even about the alleged illness and treatment of the petitioner as would be noticed from the following extract thereof : - ;g ds vihydrkZ us gfd;r okn la0 165 lu 1993 Jheku eqaflQ izFke lkgc ds U;k;ky; esa nk;j fd;k FkkA 2 1- ;g ds mDr eksdnek esa fnukad 8-5-1997 dks vafre QSlyk ikfjr gqvk ftldk fMdzh fnukad 19-6-97 dks rS;kj gqvkA 2- ;g ds mDr gfd;r eksdnek esa vafre fu.kZ; ds iwoZ gh oknh dh rfc;r vpkud [kjkc gks xbZ Fkh vkSj vihydrkZ dk ekufld larqyu [kjkc gks x;k Fkk ftl otg ls vihdrkZ dks vius ?kj&x`gLFkh dk dksbZ [k;ky ugha Fkk vkSj yEch vof/k rd ?kj ls ckgj b/kj m/kj HkVdrs jgs vkSj b/kj dqN eghuks ls rfc;r Bhd gqbZ vkSj ?kj ykSVdj vk, rFkk eksdnek dk tkudkjh fy;k rks irk pyk fd gfd;r okn esa fnukad 8-5-1997 dks gh vafre vkns’k ikfjr gks pqdk gSA 3- ;g fd fQnoh vihydrkZ dks gfd;r okn ds QSlyk dh tkudkjh fnukad 29-11-2004 dks xkWo ds pUn yksxksa ls gqbZ vkSj rc vihydrkZ us fn0 30-11-2004 dks udy dk loky nkf[ky fd;k vkSj QSlyk dk udy cthIrk fn0 1-12-2004 dks feyk gS vkSj rc odhy lkgc ls lc dkxtkr fn[kyk;k vkSj rc izLrqr vihyokn nk;j fd;k x;k gSA 4- ;g fd fQnoh vihydrkZ us tku cw>dj dksbZ xyr vkSj [kkg lqLrh ugha fd;k gS oks vxj vihydrkZ dk ekufld larqyu [kjkc ugha gksrk rks gjfxt fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds vUnj vihy djus ls ckt ugha vkrsA** 3 Counsel for the petitioner however would contend that merely because these facts were not mentioned in the limitation application could not have precluded the Court below from considering the correctness of the medical certificate dated 05.07.1997. Such submission of the learned counsel does not seem to be correct in as much as the Court below has also considered the relevance authenticity and correctness of these medical certificates and its findings is that the medical certificate dated 5.7.1997 filed by the appellant regarding his mental disorder issued by Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh by itself does not show as to for which period he was treated. The Court below has further taken meticulous care to go into the question as to whether the prescription of the date of 20.11.2004 could have shown the continued treatment of the petitioner under the same doctor. In this regard, the Court below has arrived at a conclusion that neither there is any mention of medical advice to the appellant by the said doctor after 7.9.1997 and before 15.11.2004 and on such critical analysis of the materials on record a conclusive finding has been recorded by the Court below that these medical certificates have been manufactured only for the purposes of filing this belated appeal. Thus in the opinion of this Court, the Court below 4 has not committed any material irregularity in rejecting the limitation application inasmuch as there was hardly any sufficient cause shown therein. That apart, the limitation petition even does not contain a word regarding his prolonged mental illness for which he was being claimed to have undergone treatment under by a particular doctor or for a particular period or at a particular place and therefore such worthless medical certificate in isolation could not have been by itself a proof of the fact stated in the limitation application. The Court below in fact was gracious enough to look into the plea of illness and treatment of the petitioner by a doctor and having found that even such medical certificate did not inspire confidence was absolutely justified and well in this its jurisdiction in dismissing the limitation application and consequently the appeal. Accordingly, this court would hold that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order and consequently this Civil Revision application being devoid of any merit, must be and is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)