CM(M) 288/2010 Shahjahan v. Ganga Devi Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: March 03, 2010 Date of Order: April 08, 2010 + CM(M) 288/2010 % 08.04.2010 Smt. Shahjahan ...Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bhalla, Advocate Versus Ganga Devi ...Respondent Through: nemo JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 20th November 2009 of learned ARCT, dismissing an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the petitioner along with an appeal RCT No. 15 of 2009 and consequently the appeal was dismissed as time barred. 2. The petitioner is tenant of the respondent and an order under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act was passed by the Additional Rent Controller in an eviction petition against the petitioner herein on account of non-payment of rent. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order with a delay of 345 days. The ground taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that the petitioner remained in jail from 30th April, 2008 till 4th June, 2008. After she came out of jail, she did not come to know about the order and her counsel also did not inform her of the order in time. 3. Out of 345 days of delay, the petitioner had only justified 22 days of delay i.e. CM(M) 288/2010 Shahjahan v. Ganga Devi Page 2 Of 2 the period when she was in judicial custody. Rest of the delay of around 320 days has not been justified at all. Making allegations against the advocate and illiteracy is no ground for condonation of delay. I find no jurisdictional error in the order passed by learned first appellate court. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. April 08, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd