UDAI RAM Vs. RAMOTAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. appeal is preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 25.08.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Behror, District Alwar whereby learned Court below dismissed the application of appellant applicant submitted under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC (which is treated as Order 9, Rule 9 CPC) with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by one Udai Ram for declaration and cancellation of sale deed, correction with perpetual injunction against the defendant Ramotar and Gyarsi Devi, Sub-Registrar, Behror and Tehsildar (Land-holder), Behror on 25.11.2011. During pendency of the suit plaintiff Udai Ram expired on 14.12.2009. Thereafter, appellant petitioner filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC on 06.10.2010 which was pending for reply. On 27.09.2013, since no-one appeared on behalf of applicant, therefore the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, on 01.10.2013, one Dalip Singh natural father of appellant filed an application for restoration of the suit (the application is wrongly filed under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC, which is treated as under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC). Thereafter, another application for restoration of the suit was filed by the appellant applicant Anil Kumar on 13.04.2015. Both the applications were heard together and dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.08.2015.

(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.08.2015, appellant-applicant Anil Kumar preferred this misc. appeal before this Court.