1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3933 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6543 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 21.08.2009 1. This Civil Application is for condonation of delay of 9 years and 360 days in filing revision application against dismissal of land reference which was filed in 1990. Present applicant is claimant in L.A.R. No. 167 of 1990. As per copy of order produced on record the matter was for evidence on 19.02.1998. On that day the claimant was absent. The application for adjournment Exh. 17 was filed. The same came to be rejected and the matter was kept in the second week of January, 2008 for further orders. Even on that day the claimant was absent and therefore in absence of any evidence to show that the compensation was inadequate, the reference was disposed 2 of by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad on 30th March, 1998 and therefore this Civil Revision Application is filed. 2. It is stated in para 2 of the application that the applicant is farmer and his livelihood depends on agricultural land. In 1987 the land was acquired. However, the fact remains that he filed the L.A.R. in 1990. The applicant was also knowing the date of hearing and that is why Exh.17 for adjournment was given. Since 30.03.1998 no steps were taken. According to the applicant he learnt about dismissal of his reference in January, 2008 and therefore there was delay in filing Civil Revision Application. Absolutely there is no reason given as to why no enquiry about fate of L.R.A. was made for 9 years 10 months. 3. The learned advocate cited two authorities. First is Munivenkatappa and Ors., V/s. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and ors., 2001 (1) LAC 101 of Karnataka High Court, wherein application for 3 enhancement of compensation was dismissed for default and it was restored after nine years. The Court said that technical view should not be taken and the Court should be liberal. The learned advocate for the applicant also relied upon case of Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. V/s. Union of India, AIR 2002 S.C.726. In that case it is held that non-participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to dismiss the reference in default. 4. In this case perusal of order does not show that it was dismissed for default. The dismissal of L.R.A. was for want of evidence to show that compensation offered by the Collector was inadequate. In my opinion the delay is enormous. It is not properly explained. 5. I rely on the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by Lrs. V/s. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr., 2008 (6) ALL MR 954. Particularly I may refer to para 22 and 23 which state that the object for fixing time limit for 4 litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. 6. In my opinion, this is not case where discretion can be used in favour of the applicant. Hence, this Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ca3933.08