(1.) This order will govern the disposal of 1AS No. 2469/94, 2491/94, 2468/94, 2470/94 & 8262/94.
(2.) 2469/94 was filed by Brij Mohan Jain, intervener under Section 151 CPC alleging that he had filed 1A 24/89 sometime in December 1988. After filling the reply to 24/89 the plaintiff, the Court directed both the intervener/applicant and the plaintiff to file their respective affidavits by way of evidence which were filed. Aforesaid on 14th May, 1993 was adjourned to 10th August 1993 for arguments. However, on 10th August, 1993, the case was simply renotified for 3.11.93 by the Court Master. When the case was not found listed on 3.11.93, on enquiry from the Dealing Assistant in the Registry, it was revealed that the case was postponed to 1.3.94. However, on 1.3.94 only S.No. 453/67 was shown in the list. It is further alleged that the counsel for the applicant immedlAtely on the morning of 1.3.94 saw the Court file and then he came to know that the aforesaid lA was listed for 4.11.93 and as none put in appearance on behalf of the applicant, the same was dismissed in default applicant and his counsel always remained under the impression that the aforesaid lA was adjourned to 1.3.94 for arguments. It is also alleged that even on 4.11.93, the case was not shown in the regular list. It might have been shown in the supplementary list which was not circulated to the counsel for the applicant. There was thus sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicant and his counsel on 4.11.93. It was prayed that the order dated 4.11.93 may be recalled and lA 24/89 be listed for arguments. lA 2470/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing aforesaid lA No. 2469/94.
(3.) Yet another lA 2491/94 was filed by Jai Lal Jain on the allegations identical to that taken in lA 2469/94 for restoration of lA 25/ 89 which too was dismissed in default of appearance on 4.11.93. lA No. 2468/94 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing above lA No. 2491/94.