DEEPAK SHARMA Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order passed by the trial Court restoring the suit as well as the order passed by the revisional Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition, i do feel that even though respondent no. 1- plaintiff, was negligent in prosecuting the matter properly, no fault can be found with the order restoring the suit to its original position as well as the order passed by the learned revisional Court dismissing the revision petition.

(2.) MR. Sharad Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner's application was time-barred.

(3.) RESPONDENT no. 1-plaintiff, in the application for restoration, had pleaded about the knowledge of the dismissal of the suit within the limitation period. Under Article 122 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963, the relevant date is the "date of dismissal" and not the "date of knowledge". However, after such a long time, relegating the plaintiff to a fresh spate of restoration process would not be in the interest of justice or in the interest of parties.