Skip to content


Dwarka Gorh and ors. Vs. Sita Ram Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Writ No. 81 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1953All666
ActsUttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 85
AppellantDwarka Gorh and ors.
RespondentSita Ram Singh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateSatyendra Nath Varma, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateMansingh, Adv.
DispositionApplication rejected
Excerpt:
civil - revision application section 85 of u. p. panchayat raj act, 1947 - no fixed period of limitation for filing the revision application before sub-divisional magistrate - period of two month is reasonable. - .....filed till 20-11-1952, that is after a lapse of three months and about 5 days. the learned sub-divisional magistrate was therefore justified in dismissing the application on the ground that it was belated application. he has mentioned that it was filed beyond two months. it does not appear that any period of limitation is fixed for filing revision applications before the sub-divisional magistrates, taut at the same time a period of two months is a reasonable time for filing such applications. if they are filed beyond that time it is open to the sub-divisional magistrate to reject them unless the delay is sufficiently explained by the applicants.2. there is no force in this application. it is rejected.
Judgment:
ORDER

Agarwala, J.

1. The decision of the Panehavati Adalat was made on 5-7-1952 and the revision before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not filed till 20-11-1952, that is after a lapse of three months and about 5 days. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was therefore justified in dismissing the application on the ground that it was belated application. He has mentioned that it was filed beyond two months. It does not appear that any period of limitation is fixed for filing revision applications before the Sub-Divisional Magistrates, taut at the same time a period of two months is a reasonable time for filing such applications. If they are filed beyond that time it is open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to reject them unless the delay is sufficiently explained by the applicants.

2. There is no force in this application. It is rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //