LAL BAHADUR Vs. DHAN DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inspite of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondent no. 1.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 is step sister of Laxman, petitioner's father. She filed a suit against Laxman in the form of Original suit no. 193 of 1995 for possession. The suit was decreed on 7.4.1993 by Additional Munsif (IV), Bareilly. Her case was that Ram Chandra and Smt. Chimma mother of Ram Chandra sold the house in dispute to her and in the sale deed Laxman was a witness. It was stated by Laxman that he was real brother of Ram Chandra and respondent no. 1 was their sister (step sister) and as the house was ancestral hence he (Laxman) had also share therein. It was further stated by Laxman that the house was left behind by Ramman father of Laxman, Ram Chandra and respondent no. 1- Smt. Dhan Dei and that the house was mortgaged to a third party who was pressing for payment hence the house was sold to respondent no. 1 Dhan Dei to clear the dues of mortgagee.

(3.) Against judgment and decree dated 7.4.1993 Laxman filed civil appeal no. 87 of 1993. During pendency of appeal Laxman died on 12.9.1993. However, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5.7.1994 by VIIth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, as no steps to serve the respondent had been taken. Petitioner filed restoration application along with delay condonation application (Misc. case no. 2 of 1999) after four and half years i. e. on 28.1.1999. Through the impugned order dated 27.8.2002 Additional District Judge, Court No. VII, Bareilly dismissed the delay condonation application which has been challenged through this writ petition.