TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam. In support of their contention counsel for respondent referred a case of Nasiruddin and others v. Sitaram and others reported in 2003 (2) SCC 577 and submitted that this being a special Act provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable. The Act has not provided any provision for condoning delay in filing the revision. COUNSEL for petitioner su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day and the revision is filed on 30.5.2003. Thus, the petitioner has not explained the,delay between 10.4.2003 to 5.5.2003 and from 5.5.2003 till 30.5.2003. As such in the application sufficient cause has also not been shown. Even otherwise, since provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, the application is dismissed. CONSEQUENTLY , N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
