HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 991 (M/S) of 2006 1- Ishrar S/o Jikriya 2- Sattar S/o Jikriya 3- Mohd. Ashlam S/o Jikriya 4- Ahatsam S/o Jikriya 5- Abdulla S/o Jikriya All resident of Village Kotdwar, Alampur, Pargana Manglaur, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar. Versus 1- State of Uttaranchal through the Collector, Haridwar 2- Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar. Respondents Dated: 2.8.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 29.6.2006, and 13.7.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 29.6.2006 has been passed in absence of the petitioner, and the revision has been allowed in his absence. The petitioner has also filed restoration application on 30.6.2006, which has been rejected on 13.7.2006 considering the prayer of the petitioner, it is desirable in the interest of justice that in view of the judgment of Apex Court In N Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, 1998 S.C.F.B. and Rent Cases Pages 427, It has been held that law of limitation is founded in public policy on ‘the m axim of interest reipublicae up sit finis litium ’ i.e. fal the general w elfare, it has been held as under:- “The prim ary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute betw een the parties and to advance substantial justice. Tim e lim it fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such tim e a bad cause w ould transform into a good cause.” “Rules of lim itation are not m eant to destroy the right of parties. They are m eant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their rem edy prom ptly. The object of providing a legal rem edy is to repair the dam age caused by reason of legal injury. Law of lim itation fixes a lifespan for such legal rem edy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Tim e is precious and the w asted tim e w ould never revisit. During efflux of tim e new er cause w ould sprout up necessitating new er persons to seek legal rem edy by approaching the Courts. So a life spen m ust be fixed for each rem edy. Unending period for launching the rem edy m ay lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of lim itation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the m axim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general w elfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of lim itation are not m eant to destroy the right of the parties. They are m eant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their rem edy prom ptly. The idea is that every legal rem edy m ust be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of tim e”. “It m ust be rem em bered that in every case of delay there can be som e lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn dow n his plea and to shut the door against him . If the explanation does not sm ack of m ala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court m ust show utm ost consideration to the suitor. But w hen there is reasonable ground to think that the delay w as occasioned by the party deliberately to gain tim e then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation”. Both the orders dated 29.6.2006, and 13.7.2006 are set aside. Revision is directed to be decided within a period of four months from the date of filing the certified copy of the order. Subject to above, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dated: 2.8.2006 Rathour