SHAIKH CHAND RAHIMBHAI Vs. ANNASAHEB TRIMBAKRAO BOBDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Aurangabad, on 21-2-1992 in M. A. R. J. I. No. 242 of 1990. The present petitioner was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 172 of 1985 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paithan which was a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. The suit came to be decreed on 12-7-1988 and thereafter the petitioner filed appeal against the judgment and decree. There was delay of two years, two months and 10 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, application for condonation of delay was filed. The learned District Judge dismissed that application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed on record the copy of the application for condonation of delay filed by him before the District Court and in that application, all the details regarding how the suit proceeded are mentioned. It is admitted fact that the suit summons was served on the petitioner and he even had filed appearance before the Court. So, even if it is contended that it was an ex parte decree, that is not the position. That was not a decree covered under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. The petitioner failed to file written statement and, therefore, there was an order by the learned Civil Judge to proceed with the suit without written statement. But before the plaintiff could lead evidence, the petitioner filed applications seeking permission to file his written statement. That application was allowed on condition to pay costs of Rs. 50. However, the petitioner failed to pay the costs of Rs. 50 and, ultimately, the suit had to proceed without written statement. This application to allow the written statement was granted on 3rd September, 1986. Then the Advocate for the petitioner filed application on 20-11-1986 seeking time to deposit the costs. But even thereafter, the costs were not deposited. The matter was pending before the Court and it was fixed from time to time for recording evidence. On 18-8-1987, the plaintiff filed application seeking permission to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The petitioner has contended that thereafter, his Advocate told him that the matter was fixed for judgment and they could take steps only after the judgment was pronounced. The judgment was pronounced on 12-7-1988. It appears that even thereafter the present petitioner did not take any steps.