NAESH KAHAR AND OTHERS Vs. SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the civil review application. It is pointed out that the same has been filed after a delay of nearly three years from the judgment passed on 4.9.2001 in Second Appeal No. 335 of 1987. The explanation for the same as given by the petitioners is that the judgment had been passed behind the back of the petitioners as they had not been given notice of the appeal and they learnt about the judgment and decree having been passed in the second appeal only after they received notice by the Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the first week of September. 2004 to show cause as to why they should not he dispossessed from the land in question. Thereafter, they made inspection of the High Court records and the review application has been filed. Learned Counsel for the opposite party opposes the said contention stating that the petitioners had knowledge of the judgment and decree in the appeal. However, no counter affidavit has been filed to the interlocutory application assailing the facts stated in the interlocutory application.

(2.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the petitioners have been able to show sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the review application. The interlocutory application is accordingly allowed and the delay in filing Civil Review No. 149/2004 is condoned.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.