VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Order I shall dispose off an application filed by the Petitioner under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. The Civil Revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 7/9/2000, since there was no appearance on behalf of Petitioner. It is averred that "the non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner is UN-intentional and bona fide as the Counsel for the Petitioner could not check the Cause List of 7/9/2000 of the 'Regular Matters"." This application-has been supported by" the affidavit of the Applicant in which he has deposed as follows:

(2.) Since the reason given for the non-appearance on the crucial date is relatable to the Counsel for the Petitioner, it cannot be appreciated that his affidavit has not been filed, and instead the application has been drafted on the instructions of the Petitioner. In my view, by itself this is sufficient reason for dismissing the application. In Gobind Parshad Jasidish Parshad v. Hari Shankar & Others. 2001 II AD (DELHI) 528-, in circumstances demonstrating comparatively better diligence .1 had not considered it appropriate to set aside the dismissal. The reasons apply a fortiori to the present case.

(3.) Moreover, despite being put to caution by the Respondent that the application is also barred by limitation, no action explaining the apparent delay has been given, and no prayer for condoning the delay has been preferred. On a reading of Order XLI Rules 11(2) and 19 it is apparent that an application must be brought within thirty days in accordance with Entry 122 of Schedule to the Limitation Act. Order XLI Rules 11(2) and 19 Civil Procedure Code and Entry 122 of Schedule to the Limitation Act are reproduced below for ease of reference;