ALOMINA EKKA Vs. MIKHAIL EKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is preferred against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela in Misc. Case No.1 of 2003, wherein the application under Order 9, Rule -13, C.P.C. filed by the defendant was allowed and the exparte decree passed by the trial Court on 26.11.2002 was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing FAO No.8/2 of 2006 -08 before the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Rourkela, which was rejected as not maintainable. Thereafter, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed along with a misc. case to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Office has reported that there is a delay of 1216 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that she is an illiterate lady and was ignorant of the procedural law and the lawyer at Rourkela advised her to file an appeal against the said order dated 07.07.2005. Accordingly, she filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. Rourkela, which was registered as FAO No.8/2 of 2006 -08. The said appeal was dismissed on 11.12.2008 as not maintainable.

(3.) SECTION 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in the Court without jurisdiction. In sub -Section (2) it is provided that in computing the period of limitation for any application, time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.