2022 (5) TMI 866 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay of 1433 days in filing appeal before the tribunal - Tribunal condoned the delay in revenue appeal - error of law - error apparent on the face of record or not - Revenue submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order condoning the delay of 1433 days - HELD THAT:- In the case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam [1958 (2) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court laid down what the expression "error apparent on the face of the record" connotes. The jurisdiction of the High Court on certiorari may be invoked if it is only an error of law apparent on the face of the record and not every error either of law or fact which can be corrected by a superior court in the exercise of its statutory powers as a court of appeal or revision. Where the errors cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record but they are merely errors in appreciation of documentary evidence of affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inferences, or in other words, errors which a court sitting as a court of appeal only could have examined and, if necessary, corrected, there is no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principles underlying the jurisdiction to issue a writ or order of certiorari are no more in doubt, but the real difficulty arises in applying the principles to the particular facts of a given case.

In view of the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and also the sufficient cause assigned in the applications for condonation of delay, the Revenue has assigned sufficient cause for the purpose of getting the delay condoned and the Tribunal was justified in allowing the applications - application dismissed.