Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRIJ LAL versus BALDEV SINGH @ DEV SINGH

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BRIJ LAL v BALDEV SINGH @ DEV SINGH - CMA Case No. 04769 of 2004 [2005] RD-RJ 451 (22 February 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 04769 of 2004

BRIJ LAL

V/S

BALDEV SINGH @ DEV SINGH

Mr. RK SINGHAL, for the appellant / petitioner

Date of Order : 22.2.2005

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.

The only ground given in the application under Sec.5 of the

Limitation Act is that the Advocate did not inform about the dismissal of the petitioner's application filed under O.9 R.13 CPC.

In my view, on the face of sequence of events of the present case, this explanation cannot be believed, inasmuch as, an exparte decree was passed in the suit, whereupon the appellant filed application under O.9

R.13 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial court. Against that order, appeal was filed before this court, raising specific plea that the case was fixed once for evidence, then ignoring that order fixing the case for leading evidence, the application was dismissed. That contention was accepted, and case was remanded. This remand order was passed by this court on 21.2.2002, and thereafter case was taken up by learned trial court. The appellant was again summoned for 30.7.02. Thereupon, he appeared on that day after service of notice, and evidence of the appellant were recorded on 22.10.02, while impugned order was passed on 28.1.2003 itself. Thus the matter was going on in continuity, and there was no occasion for the appellant to lie low for such a long time, and not taking care of his litigation.

In these circumstances, the theory propounded in the application cannot be believed. The application filed under Sec.5 is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /Srawat/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.