LAWS(ALL)-2000-2-11

ATAR SINGH Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

Decided On February 19, 2000
ATAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
RAJENDRA KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IKRAM-ul-Bari, J. Arguments of both sides have been heard on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and on the revision on 8-8-2000.

(2.) THE revisionist has filed this revision with delay against the judgment and order dated 26-8-98 whereby Small Causes Court's case was decided in the absence of the revisionist. THE revision has been filed alongwith application for con donation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 22-12-99.

(3.) IT is noticeable that the revisionist before this Court has not claimed benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in so many words. He has only narrated the events in the accompanying affidavit. He seems to have tried to justify the delay by narrating those events. But since the ques tion of applicability of Section 14 was dis cussed during the hearing on the applica tion, it would be proper to notice Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 is applicable, where some period was spent in prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith another civil proceeding relat ing to the same matter in a Court which from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it. In the present case, the Court below did not reject the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. on the ground that it was unable to entertain it for want of jurisdic tion or for reason of the like nature. Ob viously, Section 14 is not attracted.