SK MOHIUDDIN Vs. BEGUM JIKRUN NISSA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri in C.M.A. No. 80 of 2004 arising out of Title Appeal No. 10 of 1988 in the matter of an application under order 41, rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with a petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act. By the said order, the prayer of the appellant has been rejected by the court below refusing to condone the delay.

(2.) The facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are as under:-

(3.) The learned District Judge in that proceeding has given due opportunities to the parties to lead evidence. The appellant has examined four witnesses including himself whereas the respondents have examined two witnesses. The documents have also been proved from the side of the appellant which will be referred to if so felt necessary in course of discussion to follow. The learned District Judge taking into account the rival pleadings as regards the sufficient cause which prevented the appellant to file the petition for readmission of title appeal filed in time and for having filed after lapse of fifteen years and having further considered the evidence led by the parties has finally refused to accept the case of existence of sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the petition for readmission of title appeal in time, and for having filed after about fifteen years. Thus the prayer for readmission of the appeal by condoning the long delay having been rejected, the same is now called in question in this appeal.