JAGJIT SINGH PURI Vs. HARI DEV BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated2.11.2001 rendered by the Court of the then Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 345 days for filing the appeal, was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995, the suit filed by Hari Dev-plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, with proportionate costs, was decreed by the Court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda.

(3.) ON notice of the application, the plaintiff-respondent put in appearance, and contested the application. It was stated that the petitioner very well knew that Sh. J.C. Malhotra, Advocate, earlier engaged by him had shifted to Delhi and thereafter Sh. S.M. Nayyar, Advocate, was appearing, on his behalf. It was denied that Sh. S.M. Nayyar was appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the suit without any authority. It was further stated that delay of 345 days in filing the appeal, was wilful and intentional and as such, could not be condoned.