Court dismisses revision due to delay, stresses adherence to time limits

The Court allowed the application for amendment in the array of parties due to a typographical error. However, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision, citing the revisionist's lack of a plausible reason for the delay. The Court emphasized the importance of accountability and diligence in adhering to prescribed time limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision itself, attributing the delay to the casual and cavalier attitude of the department.

---

---

Issues involved:
Application for amendment in the array of parties in the revision. Application for condonation of delay in filing revision against impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2010 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow.

Amendment in the array of parties:
The application sought amendment in the array of parties in the revision due to a typographical error in the name of the respondent. The Court allowed the application for amendment, and directed the incorporation of the necessary amendment in the memorandum of revision.

Condonation of delay:
The revisionist filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2010. The delay was reported to be 2 years, one month, 26 days. The revisionist explained the delay citing the procedural requirements within the state entities and referred to previous judgments to support the request for condonation.

The Court considered the delay and referred to a similar case where delay was attributed to the casual and lethargic attitude prevailing in the department. Citing judgments from the Apex Court, the Court emphasized the need for state entities to provide acceptable explanations for delays, highlighting the obligation of government bodies to perform their duties diligently. The Court dismissed the revisionist's application for condonation of delay, noting the lack of a plausible reason for the delay in filing the revision.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the revision itself, citing the casual and cavalier attitude of the department in filing the revision belatedly. The Court found no cogent reason to condone the delay, considering the judgments of the Apex Court emphasizing the need for accountability and diligence in filing appeals within the prescribed time limits.

---