STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. ARAB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State and officials defendants assailed the order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Dharmanagar North Tripura in Misc. 17 of 1396 In this Civil revision under Section 115 of theCPC

(2.) The Civil Judge, (Senior Division) being the trial Court declined to condone the delay sought for by the State defendant In filing the restoration petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC against the exparte decree passed on 29.3.1996 In Money Suit No. 8 of 1995 filed by one Arab All In Misc. 17 of 1996, as a result the restoration petition stood rejected. Against which the State Defendant preferred the Misc. appeal No. 17 of 1996 purportedly under order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar. The learned Additional District Judge not only entertained the appeal but after hearing allowed the appeal restored the suit. Against which the plaintiff preferred connected Civil Revision No. 42 of 1992 and having found the Impugned order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the learned District Judge allowing the appeal without Jurisdiction, this Court In CRP No. 42 or 1999 quashed the said order.

(3.) The State defendant though in one hand filed the aforesaid Misc. appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, on the other they preferred this Revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. On perusal of the records it appears that the State defendants failed to contest the Money suit by filing written statement before the learned trial Court, as a result, the learned trial Court heard the matter exparte followed by exparte decree dated 29.3.1996. The State defendants filed the petition under order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 12th August, 1996 seeking for setting aside the exparte order dated 29.3.1996 and for restoration of the suit. That petition though filed after expiry of the period of limitation has not been accompanied by any condonation petition. However, the learned Trial Court registered it as Civil Misc. 17 of 1996. After a month the State defendants filed a condonation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 24.9.96.