Court dismisses petition seeking possession restoration under Specific Relief Act, stresses need for disclosing legal advice errors.

Haro Singh Versus Ajay Kumar Chawla And Ors.

Haro Singh Versus Ajay Kumar Chawla And Ors. - 109 (2004) DLT 297, 2004 (72) DRJ 639 Issues:
1. Delay in filing Revision Petition and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Grant of restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act but rejection of the prayer for damages.
3. Jurisdictional error by the Trial Court.
4. Condoning of delay based on wrong advice of Counsel.
5. Application of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors.
6. Discrepancy in approach between Coordinate Benches regarding disclosure of incorrect advice by Counsel.

Analysis:

1. The Civil Revision was filed against a judgment granting restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act but rejecting the prayer for damages. The Revision, filed with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, highlighted a delay in filing attributed to the previous Counsel's mistake in approaching the wrong Court for redressal.

2. The Specific Relief Act's Section 6(3) prohibits appeals from orders or decrees under this section, raising questions on the oversight leading to the appeal. The Court noted the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate any jurisdictional error by the Trial Court, emphasizing that Revision Petitions do not serve as an appellate remedy.

3. The Counsel for the Petitioner sought to condone the delay based on a judgment emphasizing that wrong advice does not constitute sufficient cause. The Court observed the need for a liberal approach in condoning delays for substantial justice but required specific disclosure of mistaken legal advice for consideration.

4. The judgment referred to Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors., clarifying its inapplicability to the present case involving a private individual as the Revisionist.

5. The Court addressed the discrepancy in approach between Coordinate Benches regarding disclosure of incorrect advice by Counsel. It emphasized the necessity for Counsel to provide detailed circumstances leading to wrong advice and rejected a perfunctory approach in condoning delays without a clear demonstration of good faith or jurisdictional errors.

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Petition as lacking merit, highlighting the need for expeditious relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the absence of jurisdictional errors or sufficient cause for condoning the delay based on wrong advice.