BUDDHU, S/O BODHWA Vs. DAYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this plaintiff's second appeal is as under: -

(2.) The plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court on 31.10.2008 against which he preferred appeal before the first appellate Court on 18.2.2009 with a delay of 70 days. The first appellate Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and also dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation against which this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in which one substantial question of law has been formulated which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr.Lavkush Sahu, leaned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in not considering the ground shown in the application for condonation as the plaintiff is saint (sadhu) and used to travel across the country for religious purpose and his application was supported by affidavit, though it was replied, but no counter-affidavit was filed controverting the sufficient cause shown in the application, therefore, the condonation application ought to have been allowed by the first appellate Court and delay could have been condoned, as such, the second appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court deserves to be set-aside.