1993 (10) TMI 373 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in preferring the revisional application before the Tribunal.
2. Condonation of delay application and principles governing it.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding poverty, ignorance, and illiteracy in condoning delays.
4. Comparison of rulings from different High Courts and the Supreme Court.
5. Jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in refusing to condone the delay.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a delay of 4-1/2 months in filing a revisional application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, which led to the rejection of the application as time-barred without assessing the merits of the case.

2. The petitioners sought condonation of the delay based on financial constraints and lack of legal knowledge. The petitioner's counsel argued for a liberal approach in condoning the delay, citing established legal principles emphasizing deciding cases on merits rather than technicalities.

3. The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays, especially in cases involving poverty, ignorance, and illiteracy. The court highlighted the importance of considering socio-economic factors in such situations, as demonstrated in the case of Ram Sumiran v. D.D.C.

4. The court distinguished and criticized the rulings of the Lahore High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments over High Court decisions. The court reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Karim Abdullah and Mst. Katiji, emphasizing the need for a just and fair approach in condoning delays.

5. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to reject the application based on delay constituted a jurisdictional error. By not considering relevant factors and applying incorrect principles, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. The court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the merits according to law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal principles, and the court's reasoning in reaching its decision to set aside the Tribunal's ruling based on the delay in filing the revisional application.