PUNSI DEVI RAJBHER Vs. PISTA DEVI AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition arises out of the order, dated 24 -3 -1986 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1985.

(2.) The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The petitioner present ed the appeal in the Court of the Assistant District Judge after the expiry of the period of limitation for the appeal without accompanying an application for not preferring the appeal within the period prescribed in violation of the provisions under Order 4i, Rule 3 -A (1), C. P. C. The appeal was, however, registered by mentioning that the appeal was barred by limitation. Afterwards, the appellant filed an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay. The learned Judge rejected the petition for condonation of delay on the ground that the petition ought to have been filed at the time of presentation of the appeal without discussing the merits of the petition. In consequence of it, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and vacated the interim order of stay; hence this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. D. N. Barua, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Assistant District Judge ought to have allowed the petition, and has referred me to the decisions as reported in Miss. Nirmala v. Bisheshar, AIR i979 Delhi 26, Mr. and State of Bihar v. Ray Chandi Nath Sahay, AIR 198 3 Pat 189, Mr. S. Birsiwal, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, has contended that the learned Assistant District Judge rightly rejected the petition as there was non -compliance with the provision under Order 41, Rule 3 -A (1), C. P. C, and has cited a decision reported in Padmavathi v. Kalu, AIR 1980 Ker 173, to support his contention.