FATTA Vs. GULABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 29-12-1951 of Mr. Tej Singh Vaidya, formerly District Judge of Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1951, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mandi in suit 233 of 1951.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent raised two preliminary objections to the hearing of this revision petition, (a) It is contended that the revision petition is beyond time. The revision petition was presented before the District Judge, Mandi, on 31-3-1952 by Sri Rattan Lal Advocate, who, it is alleged, had no power. Accordingly, the revision petition was returned and was eventually received back on 16-5-1952. It is contended that, by this time, the limitation period had expired. (b) It was further urged that the plea of 'res judicata' could not be raised in revision.

(3.) As regards (a), learned counsel for the respondent argued that Sri Rattan Lal was not enrolled as an Advocate of this Court on 31-3-1952, when the revision petition was filed before the District Judge. He further pointed out that Sri Rattan Lal had no power to present the petition on behalf of Santu. There was an office objection dated 5-5-1952 pointing out that Sri Rattan Lal had not signed the grounds of revision, nor was his power attached to the petition. The certificate at the foot of the grounds of revision was, however, signed by Sri Hissari Lal Pleader and Sri Rattan Lal Advocate. The petition was, accordingly, returned to Sri Rattan Lal, who returned it on 16-5-1952 after doing the needful. The expression "the needful" included the filing of a power executed by Santu on 11-5-1952 and accepted by Sri Rattan Lal on 14-5-1952. Mr. Kirti Ram pointed out that by this time, 139 days had elapsed after the date of the District Judge's judgment. After deducting the period spent in obtaining a copy, the revision petition would be 46 days beyond limitation (vide proviso (i), to paragraph 35 of Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order).