SUKHJIVAN SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has preferred this revision petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that his suit for decree for possession of house in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated August 5, 2002 without granting him any opportunity to produce his evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and his appeal filed before the District Judge was dismissed being time barred while dismissing his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) In brief, case of the plaintiff- petitioner is that the judgment and decree was passed against him on August 5, 2002 under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. Suit filed by the plaintiff was fixed for his evidence on March 23, 2002 but it was declared a holiday. March 24, 2002 was Sunday as such case was taken up on March 25, 2002. The case was not listed in the cause list of March 25, 2002. Counsel for the petitioner filed an application for tracing the file on March 25, 2002. The application was adjourned to May 3, 2002. The said date (May 3, 2002) was noticed by counsel for the petitioner. The application was again adjourned to May 14, 2002 which was holiday, therefore, the application was taken up on May 15, 2002. No further date was given as the Ahlmad of the Court had given an undertaking to trace out the file. In view of said circumstances, no further date was noticed. An application for tracing the file was again filed on May 15, 2003 but the petitioner came to know that suit had been dismissed on August 5, 2002. An application was filed for supply of certified copy of the judgment and decree on May 16, 2003 which was prepared on June 3, 2003. The summer vacation had started from June 14, 2003. Sadho Singh, father of the petitioner was pursuing the proceedings but he fell ill and could not approach his counsel after March 23, 2002. On account of his absence, the suit was dismissed on august 5, 2002 under provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC by closing the evidence of the petitioner. The respondents had contested the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the inordinate delay in filing of the application for condonation of delay has not been explained. It was denied if the case was listed for March 25, 2002 or that an application tracing of the file has been filed. It has been claimed that the petitioner had himself been not serious in pursuing the case. No application for tracing the file was filed on May 15, 2003. It was clarified that the suit was dismissed on August 5, 2002 and not on March 5, 2002 for want of evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The trial Court had framed the following issues:-