DAULAT @ BABU SONKAR Vs. KUNTI SONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review of the order dated 14 -2 -2000 passed by this Court, whereby Second Appeal No. 126/99 was dismissed.

(2.) THE lower appellate Court had dismissed the first appeal on the ground that it was barred by time. In the second appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was maintained, for the reason given in the impugned order dated 14 -2 -2000. 1996 MPLJ 330 : AIR 1996 MP 151 (supra) does not relate specifically to an appeal. In that case, the question of condonation of delay was not considered in the light of any rule like Order 41, Rule 3 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that case, the question of condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure arose in altogether different circumstance. The necessary facts for condoning the delay were incorporated in the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. 4. Since, there was no formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the trial Court dismissed the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In an appeal against that order, this Court said that it is not necessary to file a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act under the facts and circumstance of the case. If sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out, then as oral prayer can also be accepted. But this is not case here. 5. For all these reasons, there is no merit in this review application. The M.C.C. is accordingly dismissed.