AMAR SINGH Vs. MAUJI RAM & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having regard to the nature of the order, this Court purposes to pass, it may not be necessary to deal with the facts of the case save and except that the present appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering over the suit land, which was decreed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.1997.

(2.) Respondents/defendants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.27 of 1997. Learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 210.2002 reversed the findings returned by the learned trial Court, as a result of which, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court came to be quashed and set-aside. In the aforesaid background, appellant/plaintiff approached this Court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal, praying therein for restoration of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court after setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.26 of 1997.

(3.) During the proceedings of the case, it emerged that appeal having been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was time barred and accordingly aggrieved party i.e. appellant/defendant preferred an application for condonation of delay along with appeal. But learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 14.8.1997 taking note of the office report permitted the appellant/defendant to withdraw the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, and proceeded to decide the matter on merits.