KASHMIRI LAL THAKRAL Vs. MOHD. ASLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manoj Mishra learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act while filing restoration application has been rejected in filing the Revision within time.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed a Suit No. 16 of 1992, for arrears of rent, damages and eviction from a shop situated at Bareilly -Nainital Road, Kichha, Nainital. The Suit was contested by the applicants. The suit was decreed on 10.8.1999. A revision was preferred by the applicants, which was registered as Revision No. 11/1999. The said revision was dismissed in default on 17.2.2000. The petitioners have filed the application for recalling of the orders passed exparte on the ground that on 7.2.2000, he went to Ludhiyana in a marriage and thereafter, he was not aware about the date as the Counsel has not informed him. Further it has been stated that there was a strike from the last week of February, 2000 till the mid of April, 2000. The information, therefore, could not be made available to the petitioners till 6.4.2000.