BANSHI ALIASBANSHIDHAR AGARWAL Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dt. 19. 3. 1993 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10/93 confirming the order dated 4. 12. 1992 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 42/85.

(2.) AN appeal was preferred in the matter of the provisional determination of rent by the present petitioner-defendant before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the order dated 4. 12. 1992 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide this order dated 4. 12. 1092, the petitioner defendant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,806/- against the due amount of the areas of the rent. Against this order dated 4. 12. 1992, appeal was preferred on 3. 2. 1993 along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The condonation of delay was sought on the grounds that the matter was argued on 4. 12. 1992 and the Presiding Officer told that the order will be pronounced of the same date after some time. The learned counsel for the defendant had to leave Jaipur for Vajirpur as he had received an information with regard to the death of his near relation. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, for this reason, could not appear in the court on 5. 12. 1992. However, the clerk of the lawyer had heard the order on 4. 12. 1992 and had noted the next date in this case as 22. 1. 1993, 6. 12. 1992 was Sunday and it has been stated in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act that on 7. 12. 1992 curfew was clamped in Jaipur City following Ayodhya troubles. It has been then stated that before the curfew could be lifted, winter break commenced in the courts and the clerk forgot to inform the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and the defendant petitioner was not informed about the aforesaid order. When the matter came up before the trial court on the next date i. e. 22. 1. 1993, the learned counsel for the defendant came to know about the order with regard to depositing the amount and thereafter the application for the certified copy was moved on 23. 1. 93 and the appeal was filed on 3. 2. 1993 and thus there was a delay of a period of about one month in filing the appeal.

(3.) THIS revision petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.