SATYA NARAYAN Vs. PARBODH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-applicant has filed this application (IA No. 575/14) under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was contended that the appellant-applicant has preferred this Civil First Appeal challenging judgment & decree dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No. 81/2012 (L.Rs of Lalchand v. Prabodh Sharma & anr), whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property and damages has been dismissed. It was contended that the appellant-applicant was having no knowledge about limitation for filing appeal as the applicant is unaware about legal proceedings and after passing of the judgment & decree dated 22.04.2014 by the trial court, in the month of November 2014 he appeared in another case to lead evidence and thereafter, the appellant-applicant immediately applied for certified copy, which was received on 17.11.2014. Thereafter, the present appeal was drafted and filed before this Court without any further delay. Due to above mentioned circumstances, delay has occurred in filing the First Appeal and hence, the appellant-applicant is bona fide while filing the present appeal as delay was caused due to unavoidable circumstances. In the above mentioned circumstances, the delay is sought to be condoned. The application is supported by an affidavit.

(2.) The respondent did not file reply to the application but he contended that there is delay of 122 days in filing the appeal. This inordinate delay has not been explained by the appellant and only explanation is that in the month of November 2014, the appellant applicant appeared in another case to lead evidence and thereafter he immediately applied for certified copy, which was received to him on 17.11.2014. No fact was mentioned about when the judgment & decree came to his knowledge. It can not be a ground that he had no knowledge about limitation for filing the appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.