PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. MAHIPAL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the restoration application. It is inter -alia indicated that it was required of the appellant to file PF and notices of the sole -respondent. However, the PF and notices were not filed, the appeal came to be dismissed by this Court. The fact of dismissal came to the notice of the party only when inquiries were made in this regard and thereafter, the petition seeking restoration has been filed alongwith application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

(2.) A reply to the application has been filed and it is inter alia indicated that the appellant was well aware of the dismissal of the appeal and an account of his inaction he is not entitled to seek restoration. It is further indicated that the impugned decree already stands executed and possession of the suit property has already been handed over to the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing application and the restoration application are allowed. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 559/2009 is restored to its original number. However, it is made clear that the S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 17321/2009 has not been restored and same will stand dismissed.