BHARAT SINGH YADAV Vs. MANJULATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by order dated 23.01.2007 passed by the Court of VIIIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in M.J.C No.28/2005, whereby the application for condonation of delay, filed by the respondent/non-applicant, has been allowed.

(2.) The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present revision, are that the respondent/non-applicant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against one Malti Devi. Initially the application for injunction filed by her was rejected by the trial court, but the Appellate Court granted injunction to the non-applicant on 12.3.1991. On 30.6.1993 the non-applicant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2(1) CPC, before the trial court alleging breach of injunction by the applicant on 26.6.1993.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant should have filed a separate application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and should have properly pleaded that she was prosecuting the previous proceedings with due diligence and in good faith. It is submitted that in the absence of any such pleadings in the application, the court below could not have allowed the application by taking into consideration the fact of pendency of the previous proceedings. It is submitted that even otherwise, the application filed by the non-applicant was misconceived as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, had no applicability to the proceedings and in such circumstances the application itself was misconceived.