URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. RAM KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present civil revision, the defendant / revisionist seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2013, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case no. 33 of 2011 (First Appeal no. 39 of 1988), whereby said Court has dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith restoration application filed by the defendant / revisionist.

(2.) THE main grounds which have been taken by the revisionist in the present civil revision while challenging the impugned order are being reproduced here -in -below for convenience:

(3.) THE court below has observed in the impugned order that the first appeal filed by the appellant (revisionist herein) was dismissed on 03.08.2006 in his absence. He moved a restoration application for restoring the First appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge / F.T.C. II, Dehradun on 23.07.2010. The First Appeal was received in the Court of Addl. District Judge / F.T.C. II on 26.09.2008, which remained vacant from 16.10.2009 to 30.04.2010, but the restoration application was dismissed on 23.07.2010, in as much as, none appeared for the appellant before said Court on the date fixed. Learned court below was of the opinion that the appellant cannot be given any benefit of the mistake committed by his counsel. There was ten month's delay in filing the restoration application and no reason has been assigned for such delay. The court below, therefore, did not think it proper to allow the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Feeling aggrieved against the same, present civil revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist.