LAWS(RAJ)-1990-7-23

KRISHNA OIL MILLS Vs. JAI INDUSTRIAL WORKS JAIPUR

Decided On July 30, 1990
KRISHNA OIL MILLS Appellant
V/S
JAI INDUSTRIAL WORKS JAIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this review petition are as under :- THE applicants-appellants had filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) against the decree and judgment dated 4. 3. 77 passed in Civil Suit No. 72/73 (136/73) by the learned A. D. J. Jaipur City, Jaipur. THE appeal was admitted and notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent-plaintiff. After service of the notice of the appeal it was listed for hearing on 28. 2. 85 when it was dismissed in default for non- prosecution. THE appellants moved an application on 12. 11. 85 stating that the counsel for the appellants missed to note the case in the cause-list and, as such, no appearance could be made and this fact came to their knowledge later on and, as such, application for restoration was being made. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved with a prayer that the delay in filing the application for restoration be condoned. THE notice of the restoration application as also of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was issued to the respondent. Despite service none appeared for the respondent and the matter came for hearing on 10. 7. 87. THE learned counsel for the appellants addressed arguments on the restoration application. THE Hon'ble Judge vide order dated 10. 7. 87 observed that the impugned decree for Rs. 13,685. 71 paisa with interest was passed in the suit which was filed in 1972 and that in these circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to direct the appellants-applicants to pay at least Rs. 10,000/- in the Executing Court before the restoration application was decided. THE applicants were granted two months time for making such payments. This application was filed by the appellants-applicants in this Court for reviewing of the above said order dated 10. 7. 87. Since the Hon'ble Judge, who passed the above said order, has ceased to be the Judge of this Court, the review petition was placed before me for disposal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order.