AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (State v. Sunil Kumar) has been set aside and 14.9.2016 has been fixed for hearing and evidence. 2. While assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:-- (i) The order impugned is patently illegal for the reason that the recall application itself was not maintainable as the counsel for the applicant seeking recall was heard, therefore the order was not ex parte order. (ii) Along with the recall application, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 was filed on 29.7.2016 but without disposing of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application seeking recall of the order dated 23.5.2016 has been allowed illegally. (iii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as once the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed, the restoration application could not be decided on merit unless the delay was condoned and the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act was allowed or the finding was recorded to the effect that there was no need of filing Section 5 application and the application was within time. 6. Here in this case, admittedly, the recall application was barred by time and it was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, therefore, unless the delay was condoned, the recall application could not have been decided. 7. The view taken by me finds support from the decision of the Apex Court in Noharlal Ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Section 3 of the Limitation Act is that it is the duty of the court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defence. If a suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation, a court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation." In the case of Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup and others, (2009) 6 SCC 194, in paragraph 70, the Apex Court has held that in absence of any application for condonation of delay, the court has no jurisdiction in terms of S. 3, Limitation Act, 1963 to entertain the application filed for setting aside of decree after expiry of period of limitation. In 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Court. (ii) Once the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed and unless the delay is condoned, no order can be passed on merit. (iii) The delay cannot be condoned without having the version of otherside and for that, other side is required to be noticed and heard. 8. Here in this case, both the things are missing as neither the application filed under Section 5 was decided nor any finding has been recorded that the application was within time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the restoration application, it was not the case of the respondents that the State was not heard on 23.5.2016 and unless it was the case that the order impugned dated 23.5.2016 is ex parte on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing, his/her earlier order. The review order of the Vice-Chancellor was, therefore, a nullity. 12. In the case of G. Srinivas v. Govt, of A.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 2005 SC 4455, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed: An order passed by mistake and ignorance of the relevant facts indisputably can be reviewed, if inter al....