LATIKA INDUSTRIES Vs. G S ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.M.No.7142/2005 dated 28.4.2005, under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, C.M.No.7143/2005 dated 28.4.2005, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and C.M.No.7144/2005 also under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. I have heard Mr. P.L.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants- petitioners and Mr.S.P.Batra, learned counsel for respondent and have gone through the file.

(2.) In the main application it is submitted that Civil Revision No.1004/1998 was dismissed in default and for non prosecution on 8.8.2003. It is stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant had been suffering from lung infection and hypertension from August,2001 onwards and ?rendered irregular in appearance before the courts?. It is submitted that the petitioners came to know about dismissal of the civil revision only on 6.4.2005 when the learned counsel inspected the trial court file of execution case No.11-A/94 (old) and 67/2003 (new) and read the dismissal order passed by the High Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner was fully dependent on the learned counsel. The absence was unintentional and therefore the civil revision should be restored.

(3.) Along with this application an application No.7143 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been moved, which contains the same averments as in C.M.No.7142. In this application the delay is stated to be of 22 days. The other application No.7144/2005 is also under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the delay is stated to be of 598 days. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there is no plausible explanation for condonation of delay nor the applications are supported with learned counsel's affidavit nor any medical evidence has been filed as to how and what prevented the learned counsel or the judgment debtor himself from pursuing the matter for such a long period and has also drawn my attention to the order-sheets of this file.