PRITPAL SINGH Vs. SUAD BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.12.89 passed by Shri P.C.Ranga, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi in Suit No.M-17/86. The impugned order had been passed on an application filed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . by the petitioner herein which application was dismissed.

(2.) Some relevant dates and facts may be noticed before proceeding further. The respondents herein had filed asuit being Suit No. M. 17/86. This suit had actually been filed on 5.3.83. On 1.2.84, the suit was dismissed in default. On 3.2.84, an application for restoration of the suit was filed in which the petitioner herein had filed hisreply, and issues were framed. The case was fixed for evidence on the issues framed in this application (for restoration). The next relevant date is 10.1.86. On that date the case is supposed to have been adjourned to 12.3.86. The case, however, was not put up on 12.3.86 but was put up on 14.3.86 as has been noticed in paragraph 6 internal page 4 of Annexure-'A' to the revision petition which is an order dated 25.4.89 in the same suit. The respondent's counsel is supposed to have noted down the date as 12.4.86 instead of 12.3.86 and 'it has been the case of the respondents that they were wrongly informed that on 12.3.86 itself their application for restoration of the suit filed on 3.2.84 had been dismissed in default.

(3.) On 29.7.88, another application was filed by the respondents herein praying that the order dated 20th August, 1986 be set aside. It may be noticed here that as per the order sheet of the original records, the suit was dismissed in default on that date also. There is some overwriting in this order but no grievance has been made on behalf of the petitioner on account of this over-writing. Notice was given of the application dated 29.7.88 to the petitioner herein and reply had also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In this reply the petitioner did not take the pleas either to the effect that the application dated 29.7.88, was barred by the principles of the res judicata or that in view of the fact that there was already an application made earlier for restoration of the' suit, this application was not maintainable for that reason. It may also be noticed that no steps had been taken by the petitioner against the order dated 20th August, 1986 on the ground that there was no question of dismissing the suit on that date when the tame was already dismissed. No such objection was raised in the reply to the application dated 29.7.88.