(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 22.3.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also dismissed his appeal holding that it is time barred.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- The suit was filed by Kehru-petitioner against his sons and daughters-in-law, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.1995. An application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree was moved by the petitioner and the copies were ready for delivery on 20.11.1995 as stands revealed from the copy of order dated 22.3.1999, which is impugned order in the present revision. In these circumstances, the appeal could be instituted on or before 20.12.1995, but it has been filed on 22.6.1996. Along with the appeal, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and it was pleaded by him that he fell seriously ill due to the injuries inflicted on him by the respondents a few days prior to the delivery of the judgment and decree under appeal and he remained in precarious condition up till 19.6.1996 and during this period he remained bad-ridden and was not in a position to make free movement even with the help of crutches. Since he was completely disabled and was unable to engage his counsel, therefore, the appeal could not be instituted within limitation. The applicant could contact his lawyer on 20.6.1996 and on his advice he filed the appeal on 22.6.1996. Notice of the application was given to the respondents, who denied the allegations and from the pleadings of the parties, the Appellate Court framed the following issues on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act :-
(3.) I have heard Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.