ABDUL MAJID Vs. CH JAGAT RAM AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner for rendition of ac-counts claiming that it (respondent-firm) had taken on lease forest compartment Nos. 111 and 114 Delari range Rajouri division in the year 1974 and engaged petitioner as a subcontractor to carry the timber to road side under an agreement which an amount of Rs. 26063.48 p. was paid in cash as advance but the petitioner did not perform his part of the contract. Said suit remained pending in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Jammu who on 28-7-1986 passed a preliminary decree after framing the points to be determined by a commissioner and accordingly appointed Shri Kamini Vaid advocate as Commis-sioner. The Commissioner submitted his report on 14-8-1987 in which he had found an amount of Rs. 25,213.83p. payable by the respondent herein to the petitioner herein and further that the petitioner had received Rupees 26069.48 P. as advance from the respondent and ultimately found only Rs. 150.11P required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent herein. Commis-sioner's report was challenged by the peti-tioner herein and the learned Sub-Judge after considering all circumstances passed final order granting no decree in favour of either of the parties. Petitioner herein aggrieved of that order preferred appeal before learned Ist. Additional District Judge Jammu who on 6/01/1992 dismissed the same. Not satisfied with both the abovesaid judgments and decrees petitioner had filed civil second appeal on 9/03/1992, At the time of filing of appeal the petitioner failed to place on record copies of judgment and decree sheet of' the trial Court and as such he has filed this application for condoning delay in filing copies of judgments and decree sheets of the Court below. This application has been resisted by the respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this application seeking condoning delay in filing copies of the judgments of preliminary and final decrees the petitioner has alleged that said copies had been secured but could not be produced as the same had got misplaced and mixed up with criminal case titled Sarishta Devi v. Kuldeep Singh and others lying with the advocate, which on search were traced out on 16-4-1992. It has further been stated in the application that for the unintentional mistake of the counsel party should not be denied hearing in the case.

(3.) Rule 1 of O. 41, C.P.C. reads as under :-