PAPPU Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. A suit for cancellation of sale-deed was decreed on 19.7.1993 against the petitioners, Petitioners applied for setting aside the decree on 12.4.1999 under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. After about 10 years of the filing of the said application, petitioners moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The Court below by the order dated 3.10.2010 has refused to condone the delay and consequently the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has been dismissed. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the Revisional Court vide order dated 26.10.2013.

(2.) Aggrieved by the above two orders, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Counsel of the petitioners failed to inform about the decree passed on 19.7.1993 and that they came to know of it only in the year 1999 whereupon application for setting aside the same was filed.