NIKKU RAM Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that the suit filed by the Plaintiff was time barred. Both the Courts below held that the suit is within limitation.

(2.) IT would be pertinent to mention that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Judge) decided the suit on 27.4.2004 and with respect to issue No. 4 relating to limitation, he has specifically stated that neither any arguments were addressed, nor any evidence was adduced in support of this issue and therefore decided the issue in the negative. In the appeal filed before the learned District Judge there was no allegations that this point had been urged before the learned Trial Court, though it is a fact that it was again claimed that the suit was not within limitation. The learned Appellate Court has dealt with the case on merits and has passed a detailed judgment and in para No. 17 it has been stated that no other point was urged or argued in support of the appeal. This judgment was passed on 13.7.2005. Thereafter it appears that the Petitioner filed a Regular Second Appeal which was withdrawn since the valuation of the suit was less than Rs. 25,000/ -and in terms of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, a second appeal was not maintainable.

(3.) IT would be pertinent to note that affidavits have been filed of the counsel appearing before the Courts below that they had argued the issue of limitation. These affidavits are dated 27.6.2007. They were not placed on the record of the RSA which was dismissed on 21.9.2007. These affidavits cannot be looked into because in case a party wants to submit that it had urged certain points before a judicial authority, it must file an application before the same judicial authority and cannot be permitted to urge this point in appeal or revisional proceedings. The Petitioner cannot file such affidavits that too two years after the case had been disposed of.