LAWS(P&H)-1991-7-81

HARI SINGH Vs. RAM PRAKASH AND OTHERS

Decided On July 29, 1991
HARI SINGH Appellant
V/S
Ram Prakash And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ram Parkash and others. The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.1985. Defendants filed an appeal which was ultimately disposed of by learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 22.2.1986. The order passed by learned Additional District Judge, reads as under:-

(2.) Initially, the plaintiff filed the above titled revision petition against this order and later on after the revision petition had been partly heard an application under Sec. 14(2) of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed. By the said application, it was prayed that the revision may be treated against the original order passed by the Additional District Judge on 22.2.1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any thing against the order dated May 21,1990 and only prayed that this revision petition maybe treated against the original order dated 22.2.1986. The learned counsel further prayed that the delay in filing the revision petition against the original order be condoned. The learned counsel submitted that an application under Sections 151 and 152 Code of Civil Procedure was filed on Jan. 15, 1987 and was finally disposed of on May 21,1990 and the period spent be excluded in view of the provisions of section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. Though there is no ground to exclude this period, yet if the same is excluded even then the revision petition would be barred by time as there is no application not even a prayer for condonation of delay for the period 22.2.1986 to 15.1.1987. Thus, even if the revision petition, as has been filed, he treated as an appeal against the original order, the same will be hopelessly barred by time and no explanation is forthcoming for this delay nor there is any application for condonation of delay for the period 22.2.1986 to 15.1.1987.

(3.) In view of what has been observed above, this revision petition is dismissed being barred by time. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.