SMT. SHARDA DEVI Vs. MURARI LAL VAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving raise to this revision petition are that on 11th June, 1975, the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed under Order, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. Against that order, she preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Gurgaon. At the time of hearing of the appeal, an objection was raised that the impugned order was not appealable. The objection was held to be valid and on 7th February, 1977 the appeal was dismissed. The present petition was filed in this Court on 18th April, 1977. Along with it, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1244/CII of 1977 under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act was filed or condoning the time spent by the petitioner in the Court of the District Judge. In reply to notice, the respondent has opposed this application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Sarmukh Singh v. Chanan Singh and others, 1960 AIR(P&H) 512 laying down :-

(3.) Applying the ratio of this decision learned counsel for the respondent urged that the petitioner has failed to show how her counsel acted in good faith. On the other hand, urged the learned counsel for the respondent that if the lawyer of the petitioner had just taken pains to study Order 43, rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, which makes certain orders appealable, it would have become known to the lawyer that the impugned order was not appealable. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to meet this point. Following the ruling cited above, I find that no case is made out to allow the Miscellaneous Application.