SUGNIBAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision against the order dated 13-10-93 passed in Civil Appeal No.5190 by the Ist Additional District Judge, Katni.

(2.) One Newandram was allowed to occupy suit plot No.632, Tikuri Camp., Katni, admeasuring 39' x 90'. However, there was disturbance in possession of Newandram over a portion of suit plot by the non-applicant No.2 defendant, a suit for permanent injunction and declaration was brought by the present applicant and present non-applicant No.3 who are wife and son of late Newandram, in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, katni. They also sought relief of temporary injunction.

(3.) The Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, hence appeal No.5/90 was preferred. Earlier that appeal was dismissed on the ground of having been filed without a certified copy of the impugned order; but after an application under sections 114 and 151. CPC was moved by the present applicant and non-applicant No.3 jointly, the said appeal was restored for hearing. In the said appeal No.5190 in the cause title the name of only non-applicant No.3 as appellant was mentioned, and the name of present applicant/ co-plaintiff was not mentioned either as appellant or as respondent. According to the applicant, the mistake was a typing error therefore an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved (which in fact ought to have been under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. The Appellate Court, however, rejected the said application by the impugned order mainly on the ground of delay, and the present applicant was not permitted to join as party in the said appeal.