PADAM SINGH Vs. RAJNI SARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. No. 226/2006, arising out of Execution Petition No. 31 of 2001, whereby the petition for restoration of the objections was dismissed as time barred.

(2.) THE civil proceedings which have given birth to the present LPA have a chequered history. It appears that the decree holders/plaintiffs have been dragged by the appellant from pillar to post and post to pillar. Finally, a decree was passed, which was not discharged or satisfied, constraining the decree holders to file Execution Petition No. 31 of 2001, in which objections were filed by the judgment debtor, by the medium of application, under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 90 and Section 151 of the CPC, for declaring the sale null and void, were dismissed in default three times, i.e., on 7.8.2002, 28.2.2003 and 22.9.2005 and was restored so many occasions. The petition again came to be dismissed in default on 2.1.2006, on the fourth time, and an application for restoration was made on 25.7.2006, alongwith limitation petition, was resisted by the decree holders, before the learned Single Judge, on the ground that it was barred by time.

(3.) THE appellant/judgment debtor is caught by his own acts and conduct, the details of which are given in the impugned order. The records of the file do reveal how judgment debtor/appellant has caused the delay in deciding the Execution Petition, the applications and the appeal.