High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sukhbir Singh v. Iind A.D.J., Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - C No. 4317 of 1994  RD-AH 11306 (5 July 2007)
Court No. 28
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4317 of 1994
The II Additional District Judge, Saharanpur & Ors.,
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders dated 4th September, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Saharanpur rejecting the application filed by Sukhbir Singh for being impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings and the order dated 11th November, 1993 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Saharanpur rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 4th September, 1993.
The records of the writ petition indicate that respondent no.3 Kulwant Singh had filed Original Suit No.29 of 1972 for recovery of a sum of Rs.7687/- against Munshi Ram, father of Sukhbir Singh. The said suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge by the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 1972. The said decree was put into execution. Objections were filed by Munshi Ram under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 90 CPC but during the pendency of the aforesaid objections Munshi Ram died on 18th May, 1981. An application was filed by Sukhbir Singh before the executing Court for being impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings but this application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge by the order dated 4th September, 1982 as it had not been verified according to rules. The property was auctioned and the auction was also approved by the Court. Sukhbir Singh then filed a writ petition to challenge the said order but the said petition was dismissed on the ground that an appeal should have been filed. Sukhbir Singh then filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge holding that sufficient cause had not been shown for explaining the delay in filing the Appeal after the decision of the High Court.
The case set up by the petitioner was that he was not present in the Court on 29th July, 1986 when the petition was decided and a certified copy of the order was not sent to him by his counsel by post but had been handed over to him by some other person after a considerable delay. The Appellate Court has observed that the facts mentioned in the application under Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act were quite vague inasmuch as even the name of the person who had been asked by the counsel to deliver the certified copy of the judgment and order had not been indicated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Appellate Court. This apart, what needs to be mentioned is that after the auction had been confirmed, the sale deed was also executed in favour of the decree holder and the possession of the property was also given to him. These factors have also been taken into consideration by the Appellate Court while rejecting the application.
There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.