MATADIN MOUR Vs. PRAHLAD KUMAR MOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed on 9.2.98 under Order 43, Rule 1(d) CPC, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.97, passed by Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 71/91, arising out of Probate Misc. Case No. 339/88, therefore rejecting the petition under Order 9, Rule 13, read with Section 151 CPC, for setting aside an ex-parte order dated 4.4.89 passed in the foresaid Probate case.

(2.) This appeal was admitted for hearing on 3.3.98, when notices were directed to be issued an interim order was also passed with direction to appellants counsel to serve by registered post, copies of the appeal memo, application for injunction and also by hand to learned counsel who appeared for the respondent before the lower Court. Accordingly on 17.3.98 Mr. Roy, for the respondent prayed for time till 23.3.98, when the counsel for the appellant sought some time in view of the bulky reply filed by the respondent and secondly it was submitted that some allegations have been made against the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and in support of the allegations the copying application No. 176/97 has been filed by the respondent as Annexure-13. Appellant filed an affidavit which the respondent wanted to controvert for which time was prayed and granted.

(3.) In view of the allegations of interplotations made in the copying application for copy, its date of receipt tampering with record, trial Court's record was requisitioned. The record of the copying section makes some shocking revelations. There is tampering with record, it is full of interpolations at places mentioning date and these interpolations, were made solely with a view to gain time, which had already run out for filing an appeal. Merits apart, we have confined the hearing to the question of limitation.