PURSHOTTAM LAL Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2014 passed by the District Judge, Churu, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chum has been rejected as barred by limitation. The respondents -plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellant seeking restrain against him from interfering in the possession of the suit property.

(2.) A written statement was filed by the defendant -appellant, to which a replication was also filed. The plaintiff led his evidence and after closure of evidence by the plaintiff, the trial court after granting ten adjournments and when defendant or his counsel was not present, directed to proceed ex -parte. Whereafter, learned counsel for the defendants appeared and after hearing the parties, by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court.

(3.) THE Appellate Court after hearing the parties and examining the judgment impugned before it, came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the appellant does not make out a case for condonation of delay as the negligence of the appellant is writ large on the record and consequently, dismissed the application as well as appeal filed by the appellant.