RAM CHANDER Vs. VASHIST KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filled for the review if my order dt. 21.3.72 by which the revision petition filed by the respondent was allowed and ihe entire suit filed by the applicant with regard to all the prayers in the suit WAS dismissed as withdrawn.

(2.) The first objection raised on behalf of non-applicant is that application has been filed beyond prescriced period of 30 days. [After giving details of dates, the Judgement proceeds] It seems to me that there was not only one day's delay in the filing of the review application but the applicant also was not very vigilant in complying with the requisitions of the office within the time allowed to him. If the matter had rested there, I would have been reluctant to condone the delay because there does not appear to be sufficient justification for the delay in refiling the application within the time allowed by the office and if the dates of refiling are to be taken into consideration the review application will undoubtedly be hopelessly time-barred.

(3.) However, on hearing the matter on merits, I feel that the order made on March 21, 1972 with regard to the disposal of the suit was not an order in accordance with law and, therefore, inasmuch as it is going to be binding on the subordinate Courts and relates to the interpretation of sub-rule (2) rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, I will go into the merits of the matter in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court because there are likely to be large number of applications of the same nature as the application that was filed in the trial court in this matter. What had happened was that the evidence of the parties had been concluded in the trial Court and the suit was only to be argued on the merits when the applicant-plaintiff filed the application under sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the suit filed by him with liberty to file a fresh suit. By his order dated July 29, 1968 the Additional District Judge who was hearing the suit permitted the applicant to withdrawn it in respect of part of the relief but found that there was no good ground for permission to institute a fresh suit and he, therefore, dismissed that part of the suit as withdrawn.