ADARSH RANI Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to restore Civil Misc. in Civil Revision which was dismissed in default and to decide the same on merits. Inasmuch as, there is delay in filing the application, the same is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit.

(2.) THE records of the case would bear it out that the Civil Revision was dismissed for want of prosecution on January 22, 1999. While dismissing the same for want of prosecution the following order was passed :- "This case pertains to the year 1982. It is 2.40 PM. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Petition to stand dismissed for want of prosecution." Civil Misc. No. 2191-C-II of 1999 was then filed for restoration of revision which, as mentioned above, was dismissed in default. Notice of this application was issued to the counsel opposite on February 26, 1999 and the matter was adjourned to March 15, 1999. The matter, however, came up for hearing on July 9, 1999, when on the request of the counsel for the applicant, it was adjourned to August 6, 1999. There was yet another request by the counsel for the applicant for adjourning the case and the case was adjourned to September 10, 1999. The request for adjournment went on unabated as the records would bear it out that on September 10, 1999, request for adjournment was made and then it was adjourned to October 15, 1999. Yet again on December 17, 2000, on written request made for adjournment, this case was adjourned to February 10, 2000. On the adjourned date i.e. February 10, 2000 office was asked to send for the record of the trial Court and the matter was adjourned to March 10, 2000. On the date aforesaid, as none appeared the case was yet adjourned in the interest of justice to April 20, 2000. When no one yet appeared on April 20, 2000, following order was passed :-

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the applicant was asked to show the diary or brief where the wrong date, i.e., 26.5.2000 might have been noted. The counsel, in compliance with the directions of the Court, has handed over a brief where under the column 'Date', one of the dates mentioned is 28.4.2000, whereafter, of course, 26.5.2000 has been mentioned. It is apparent that Rs.8' in the date 28.4.2000 has been interpolated. Digit Rs.0' clearly seems to have been converted into digit Rs.8'. This over-writing and conversion of the date from 20.4.2000 to 28.4.2000 is otherwise also apparent inasmuch as there was no date as 28.4.2000 in this case. In fact, Civil Misc. application came to be dismissed on 20.4.2000, whereafter the dates were given only after the application in hand was filed, as per brief of the lawyer, on 1.8.2000. The brief of lawyer has been retained on records of the case.