RAMGULAM ALAIS SADHU PATEL Vs. BHAGWAT PRASAD PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice.

(2.) LEAVE granted.

(3.) ON coming to know of the ex parte judgment, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). He also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. By an order dated 17.8.2001, the trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay by observing that the appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the application within the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the trial Court declining his prayer for condonation of delay was also dismissed on the ground of delay. The appellate Court noted that Shri Z.A. Azad, Advocate, who was representing the appellant, had died but observed that the appellant ought to have made alternative arrangement for obtaining copy of the order of the trial Court and filed appeal at the earliest. Civil Revision No. 387/2003 filed by the appellant against the order of the lower appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court with an observation that even if the appellant's counsel Shri Z.A. Azad died, he should have instructed the junior counsel to obtain certified copy for the purpose of filing the appeal.