LAWS(HPH)-2000-4-20

MOHINDER SINGH Vs. RULIA

Decided On April 11, 2000
MOHINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
RULIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi whereby he has allowed the application of the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing Cross -Objection No. 1 of 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 19b.

(2.) Brief and undisputed facts are that the petitioner filed a Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1990 against the respondent and others which were assigned for disposal to learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. Notices of the appeal were ordered to be issued and service of such notice was effected on the respondent on 25.7.1990, admittedly during the period when the courts at Mandi were closed for Summer Vacations till July 31, 1990. The respondent filed cross -objection on August 28, 1990 when it was directed that the same be put up with the main file on 1.10.1990. It appears that the cross -objections were not put up before the court on 1.10.1990 nor the appeal was so put up on the said date. In the absence of the parties, orders dated 3.10.1990 were passed directing putting up of the cross -objections with the main file. The main file was to come up before the learned Additional District Judge on 14.4.1991 but the Presiding Officer was on leave on the said date. The matter thereafter remained pending for service of the respondents and mostly for arguments till 26.9.1997 when arguments were partly heard and were concluded on 17.10.1997. The matter was thereafter listed for orders on different dates. However, on 5.12.1997 respondent sought time to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was filed on 12.12.1997. The application was contested by the petitioner and on the basis of the contents of the application and the reply thereto, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues: "1. Whether the cross -objection of respondent Rulia are not maintainable? OPD

(2.) Whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the cross -objection? OPR.