BHAGMATI DEVI Vs. ANANDI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties No. 6 and 7. No one appears for other opposite parties although repeated notices have been validly served upon them.

(2.) I. A. No. 456 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for condoning the delay in the filing of the civil revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against order dated 5-8-2004 this civil revision has been filed on 28-1-2005 although according to stamp report the period of limitation expired on 3-11-2004 and hence there was a delay of about 85 days. Considering the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown due to which the petitioner was prevented from filing the civil revision earlier. In the said circumstances, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay in the filing of the civil revision is condoned.

(3.) THIS civil revision has been on behalf of defendant No. 5 petitioner against order dated 5-8-2004 passed in Title Suit No. 8 of 2000 by which learned Subordinate Judge, vi, Saran rejected her petition for recall of order dated 11-12-2003 by which counter claim filed by defendant Nos. 6 and 7 (opposite party Nos. 6 and 7) was allowed.