NAGO KUAR Vs. DIPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the courts belows.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed Title Suit No. 60 of 1976 for getting declaration of her share in the suit property and for partitioning the same. During the course of proceeding of the suit, an amendment petition was filed by the plaintiff which objected to regarding some factum of her title over the suit property. The said amendment was allowed after hearing both the parties, but it appears that after the amendment was allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. the same amendment had not been incorporated in the plaint within the time specified under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. That point was very much raised before the appellate court when the suit was decreed on the basis of amendment being allowed and evidence led to that effect by both the parties. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff before the original court and on appeal being preferred the same decree has been maintained and turning down the point of amendment being not incorporated within the time limit as per Rule 18 Order 6 of the C.P.C.

(3.) THIS appeal has been filed on 14.5.1990 when the judgment of the appellate court was delivered on 11.5.1989 in Title appeal no. 8 of 1980. The appeal has been hopelessly barred by limitation as the same has been filed after about nine months. In the condonation petition, grounds have been taken to the effect that the appellants being village rustic persons could not know the effect of limitation and as such they went to their original home ¢ for arranging money for filing appeal and taking certified copy and in the process delay was caused.