PUSHPABEN BALWANTRAI Vs. NANDKUMAR RAMANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner of the present Civil Revision Application is the original defendant of H.R.P. Suit No.2243 of 1982. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs of the said suit. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for getting decree of possession of the suit premises which is situated in Jamalpur area of the city of Ahmedabad.

(2.) In the aforesaid sit the defendant had engaged the advocate to defend the suit. However, that advocate had subsequently retired from the suit proceedings. Ultimately the suit was decided ex-parte and decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 11-8-1989. Against the said ex-parte decree the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad. Since there was delay of about 7 months and 21 days, the petitioner had filed a separate application for condonation of delay along with the said appeal. As per the averments made in the said application for condonation of delay, the petitioner came to know about the said ex-parte decree on or about 28-4-1990. The petitioner was not informed about the ex-parte decree by her advocate. The Appellate Bench after hearing the concerned advocates ultimately passed the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay on 28-9-1990. Thus, by the impugned order dated 28-9-1990 passed below the application exh. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1990, the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected by the Appellate Bench. The said order dated 28-9-1990 passed by the Appellate Bench bellow the application exh. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1990 is impugned in the present Civil Revision Application at the instance of the present petitioner.

(3.) It is required to be noted that the present Civil Revision Application was admitted by this Court about a decade back and interim relief was granted and is operating since admission of the present Civil Revision Application.