KAMALJEET KAUR Vs. SATYA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition, stands, directed against the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., upon, an application bearing CMP No. 309-S/6 of 2013, cast under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, wherethrough, the petitioner herein, sought condonation of delay, in, instituting an appeal, against, the exprate judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, upon, Civil Suit No. 95/1 of 2010/08, titled as Bala Dutt vs. Kamal Jeet Kaur and another.

(2.) The learned trial Court on 10.03.2009, made a conclusion (a) that despite valid service being effectuated, through affixation, in the afore civil suit, upon, the petitioner herein/defendant No.1, and, yet hers omitting to record her appearance therebefore either in person or through any authorised counsel, hence, hers being enjoined, to, face an order, for hers being proceeded against ex-parte. She, thereafter pronounced ex-parte decree for mandatory injunction against defendant No.1/petitioner herein, was, strived to be assailed before the learned First Appellate Court, (b) yet only after expiry of the prescribed period of time for institution of an appeal therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, (c) obviously, the, belated concert of the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein, enjoined, an, adjudication being made, upon, an application, cast under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, as, stood appended with the memorandum of appeal, instituted, before the learned First Appellate Court, against the afore rendered ex-parte judgment and decree. The petitioner herein/defendant No.1, was, enjoined to therein display good, and, sufficient cause, constraining her, to, belatedly institute, the apposite appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, wherebeforewhom, a challenge was cast, vis-a-vis, the ex-parte judgment and decree.

(3.) An averment is cast in the application, cast under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, (a) that the summons were not served upon her in accordance with law, (b) and, obviously she intended to contend that the orders made, on 10.03.2009, by the learned trial Court, qua, valid service through affixation being caused, upon, her rather being legally infirm. Furthermore, she averred in the application, that, in the year 2009, she not residing at Shimla, and, rather was residing at Delhi, in connection with the treatment of her ailing daughter, (c) and, she thereafter pleaded that she acquired knowledge, vis-a-vis, the ex-parte judgment, and, decree, on 28.05.2013, (d) and, upon her within 30 days thereafter hence instituting, the apposite civil appeal against the ex-parte judgment, and, decree, hence renders her explanation, for, the apposite inordinate delay, being tangible, (e) and, she prayed that delay be condoned, and, thereafter, the, civil appeal reared against the ex-parte judgment and decree, be registered, in, the apposite register of civil appeals.