JUDGMENT
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition was heard by me and allowed on 18.3.2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. The revisional order dated 25.5.2001 was quashed and revisional court was directed to decide the Revision No. 299 of 2001 within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. Now, here are the reasons for allowing the writ petition.
2. Petitioner-tenant of the accommodation in dispute filed a Revision No. 299 of 2001 against the decree of the trial court passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 65 of 1999. The revisional court rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same is barred by time.
3. Admittedly, the trial court decreed the suit on 3.4.2001 whereas
the petitioner filed the present revision on 10.5.2001. The limitation for filing the revision was up to 2.5.2001 but the same was filed on 10.5.2001. As stated above, there was delay of hardly 7 or 8 days in filing the revision. The explanation given by the petitioner was that since the Advocates at Varanasi were on strike up to 30.4.2001 and petitioner decided to engage another counsel to file the present revision. It is only on 1.5.2001 after strike of the advocates were called off, the petitioner engaged a new counsel on 2.5.2001 when the newly engaged counsel for the petitioner inspected the record of the case on 3.5.2001. Thereafter he prepared the revision and filed the same on 10.5.2001. The revisional court while rejecting the aforesaid revision has held that on the date when the suit was decreed, there was no strike of the advocates as stated by the petitioner and the strike started in the last week of April, 2001. which has not been explained as to why the petitioner has not filed the revision Immediately after the suit was decreed. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the revisional court came to the conclusion that no cause much less sufficient cause has been explained for filing the revision beyond time under Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing the revision, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is hardly 7 or 8 days’ delay in filing the revision which has sufficiently been explained by him and it is settled law that the delay in filing the application, revision or appeal need not be explained with mathematical precision. The reason given by the revisional court that why the petitioner has not filed the revision when the suit was decreed on 3.4.2001 before the strike of the advocates commenced, is wholly untenable in view of the fact that if the limitation 13 prescribed for filing an application, revision or appeal, the same can be filed upto the last date of limitation and the delay has to be explained only for the period beyond limitation.
5. In this case, the petitioner has explained the delay beyond the date of limitation sufficiently and view taken by the revisional court to the contrary, is untenable in law.
6. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the revisional court rejecting the revision on the ground of delay, deserves to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.5.2001 passed by the revisional court, impugned in the present writ petition, is set-aside. The revisional court is directed to decide the Revision No. 299 of 2001 pending before it within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Parties shall bear their own costs.
