BASTI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This restoration application was barred by limitation and hence an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The question is whether the petitioner has been able to explain the delay and hence entitled for condonation and consequent order of restoration?

(2.) Revision petition No. 65/98 was filed against the order of learned Civil Judge (JD) Merta dated 7.10.1997 which was admitted on 17.1.1998 and it was ordered that the notice be issued, returnable within four weeks. The petitioner filed PF and notices but not the extra set, hence notice was not issued as reported by office on 27.1.1998. The case was listed in court on 6.2.1998 but nobody was present on behalf of petitioner. However, one week's time was allowed to do the needful. On 6.3.1998 Mr. R.R. Chacha, counsel for the petitioner, was present and in his presence three days time was granted to do the needful failing which it was ordered that the revision shall stand dismissed without reference to the court. On 17.3.1998 it was reported that PF and notices and extra set were filed but not in time as directed on 6.3.1998. On 1.4.1998 nobody was present and it was ordered by the Dy. Registrar (Judl) that in view of the court's order dated 6.3.1998 revision petition stood dismissed.

(3.) As stated, the revision petition was dismissed as Shri R.R. Chacha, counsel for the petitioner, did not file the extra set within a period of three days. It is stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit that the petitioner contacted his lawyer about the progress of the case in the third week of July, 1998, who informed him that he would inquire from the office and the petitioner was informed on 17.7.1998 that the petition was dismissed for non- submission of extra set. The copy of the order was delivered to him on 18.7.1998 from which it was not clear as to how dismissal took place. Then the petitioner applied for copy of the order which was not complied with and obtained its copy on 28.7.1998. It has been urged that it was dismissed because of the mistake of his lawyer and, therefore, he engaged another lawyer and then filed this restoration application.