BABLI MAHTAIN Vs. GOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision application, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.08.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhanbad in Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1999 whereby the said miscellaneous case has been dismissed refusing to restore the order of dismissal passed in Title Appeal No. 26 of 1998. The said title appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1998 passed by Sub Judge Vlth Court, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 86 of 1985. After filing the appeal, the office required filing of deficit court -fee stamp. - Opportunity was given to the appellant, but the same was not complied with and consequently for non -compliance of the said order, the title appeal was dismissed on 10.03.1999. A petition had been filed being Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1999 praying restoration of appeal under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order the said miscellaneous case has been dismissed.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the order it appears that the petitioner had adduced evidences to prove the circumstances under which they were prevented from filing the' deficit court -fee stamp. The learned Court below has rejected the oral evidences on inconsequential ground and disbelieved the explanation of the appellants -petitioners for non -examination of the pairvikar, Pustau Mahto,.and has held that on consideration of the facts and circumstances, the case is not fit to be allowed as the same is also time barred.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and perusing the record, I find that the learned Court below has dismissed the application, mainly on the consideration that the same was time barred and that oral evidence was not believable due to non -examination of the Paiwikar -Pushu Mahto. The Court below has not come to a definite finding regarding the date of knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal for the purpose of application of the law of limitation and for holding the petition as time barred. A judgment/order touching the valuable rights of the parties cannot be passed in such cryptic and non -speaking manner. From the records, I find that there is no discussion regarding the date of knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal for holding the Miscellaneous case time barred particularly when it was claimed by the petitioner that the same was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge. The Court below has also not recorded convincing reason for rejecting the credence of the oral evidence adduced by the petitioners.