VINOD KUMAR Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(C) of the CPC the appellant has challenged the order of the trial court dated 24/8/2018 whereby the application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application has been dismissed, consequently the application u/O.9 Rule 4 of the CPC filed by the appellant has also been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant has filed suit for specific performance of the contract and by order dated 10th April, 2014, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution as the appellant has failed to appear in the matter, therefore, the appellant had filed the application u/O. 9 Rule 4 of the CPC dated 17/6/2015 along with an application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act dated 16/6/2015 and the trial court by the impugned order has rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the restoration application.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant submits that in the original suit the appellant had failed to appear because the suit was transferred from one court to another on 22/3/2014 and thereafter 26/3/2014 was fixed and on 10 th April, 2014 it was dismissed without the knowledge of the appellant. Hence, when the appellant came to know about the dismissal he had filed the application for restoration with the application for condonation of delay.