KUREY Vs. DALIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been filed by the applicants under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act respectively seeking restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal.

(2.) Case of the appellant is that he had engaged the services of Mr. P.P. Juneja Senior Advocate to represent him in this case. Mr. Juneja had advised him that he would inform him as and when his presence would be required in the Court. He had no information from his lawyer about the date 15th July, 2003 when the appeal was dismissed in default for non prosecution. The appellant never came to know of the dismissal of the appeal till he received notice of the revival application on 14/2/2007 filed by the respondent in the court of Additional District Judge, Land Acquisition on 17/12/2007 for revival of reference pending inter se the parties under Section 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act, which was stayed sine die because of pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Mr. Mahender Singh Advocate was working as Junior of Shri P.P. Juneja and had been appearing in the Court in that capacity and therefore had moved the application on behalf of the applicant for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased appellant Kurey. The actual counsel was Mr. P.P. Juneja only.