MAHESH CHANDER Vs. DERSHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent fieled a suit for eviction of Anant Ram Khanna and Brothers from plot No. 59, Basti Ara Kashan Road, New Delhi, which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Delhi on 21.1.78. Mahesh Chander petitioner on 1.8.78 filed objections praying that the respondent be not allowed to execute the decree against him. His objections were dismissed on 6.7.79. The Court observed that no provision of law was cited by the objector in his objection petition, that O.21 R.99. and 101 was not applicable and that the objections fell under O.21 R.58 of the Code. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration on 7.7.79 for a decree that he was the owner of the plot in question and that the respondent was not entitled to dispossess him. The respondent in the written statement took an objection that the suit was not maintainable. Objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was also taken by the respondent. The Sub- Judge trying the suit returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaint was refiled in the Court of the District Judge. The respondent in the written statement took the objection that the suit was not maintainable under O.21 R.101 of the Code. The ADJ by his judgment and order of 20.11.79 held that the suit was not maintainable. The appellant filed the first appeal in this Court, and the same was dismissed in limine on 20.12.79 holding that the suit was not maintainable.

(2.) The petitioner then on 13.12.79 filed the appeal challenging the order dt 6.7.79 before the District Judge under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code as amended by Act 104 of 1976 together with an application u/Ss 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The ADJ by the impugned order dt. 31.5.80 dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently he dismissed the appeal. The ADJ observed that if a litigant acts on the mistaken advice of his pleader he is not entitled to get the benefit of sections 4 and 14 of the Limitation Act. He further observed that the mistake could have been avoided with the exercise of due care, and that the proceeding contrary to a clearly expressed provision of law cannot be said to be prosecuted in good faith. The petitioner therefore, has filed this revision u/s 115 of the Code for quashing the order of the ADJ dismissing his application for condonation of delay.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that no revision is maintainable. Petitioner submits that it lies u/s 115, CPC. [This section is then reproduced].