LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-265

EINO S. MEHTA Vs. SANMATI MOTORS & ANR.

Decided On August 22, 2017
Eino S. Mehta Appellant
V/S
Sanmati Motors And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions, both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugn separate but identical orders of the same learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) (West) in two suits filed by each of the petitioner, of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 14th February, 2017 for restoration of the suits dismissed in default on 2nd July, 2016.

(2.) On 2nd July, 2016, the respondents/defendants also had not appeared before the ADJ. Thus the applications were under Order IX Rule 4 of the CPC.

(3.) The learned ADJ has dismissed the applications reasoning that the limitation for filing the application for restoration of the suit is governed by Article 122 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and since the applications were not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay, they were liable to be dismissed as barred by time.