NAHANI DEVI Vs. GOPAL LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition was preferred by the petitioner No.1- defendant-Khatedar Smt. Nahani Devi (Now deceased) and later on, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were also allowed to join the present petition, to whom petitioner No.1 had transferred her Khatedari rights of the agricultural lands in question through registered sale deed and their names have been entered into as Khatedar in the revenue record. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dtd. 23/3/2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.93/2008 whereby and whereunder the Appellate Court, while quashing the order dtd. 13/8/2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur District, Jaipur, dismissing the application for restoration filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC, has condoned the delay of 9 years "from 26/7/1996 to 8/7/2005" with a cost of Rs.2000.00and directed the trial Court to decide the application for restoration afresh on merits.

(2.) It appears that a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was instituted on 16/4/1992, on the basis of an agreement dtd. 3/1/1988 which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution at the stage of plaintiffs evidence on 26/7/1996. Thereafter, application for restoration of suit was moved on 8/7/2005, it means after near about 9 years. The trial Court did not find any sufficient reason to condone the delay of 9 years and dismissed the application for restoration vide order dtd. 13/8/2008. On filing appeal, the Appellate Court condoned the delay and directed the trial Court to consider and decide the application for restoration afresh on merits. Hence, feeling aggrieved by condonation of such huge, exorbitant and inordinate delay of 9 years by the Appellate Court, this revision petition has been filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order dtd. 13/8/2008.

(3.) The issue falls for consideration by the High Court under this revision petition is that as to whether the Appellate Court committed any material illegality/ irregularity and jurisdictional error in condoning the delay of 9 years interfering with the discretion of the trial Court where the trial Court declined to condone such inordinate delay after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of case and as to whether the impugned order deserves to be quashed or not?