HEMCHAND LOOKAR Vs. SUJYAPATI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties

(2.) An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, being CAN 8084 of 2005. is taken up for hearing

(3.) From the report of the Stamp Reporter who has dealt with the matter, it appears that on 2nd September, 2005 a note was endorsed on the file of the cross-objection as filed, being numbered as COT 2699 of 2005, that there was a delay of 13 days to prefer this cross-objection with reference to the appeal, being SAT 1727 of 2005, on calculating such 13 days from the date of service of the appeal on 22nd June, 2005 From the order sheet of the Second Appeal, SAT 1727 of 2005, it appears that the appeal was admitted for hearing on 13th July, 2005 under Order 41 Rule 11 of the C P C In view of the office note cross- objection file was directed to be returned to the learned Advocate so that appropriate application praying for condonation of delay may be filed In pursuance of such note, this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent of the said Second Appeal To satisfy that there was sufficient reason not to approach the Court in time, reasons have been assigned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act The Court is not concerned at the present moment with that pleading Having regard to the statutory provision of law and on the reflection of the records of the Second Appeal, a question has been cropped up as to whether there was at all any necessity to file any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act The relevant provision now to be looked into Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the relevant rule by which the cross appeal could be preferred with reference to any appeal filed under certain contingencies Order 41 Rule 22 tends to this effect