w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Pappu v/s Narayan

    Writ-C No. 11107 of 2014

    Decided On, 20 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

    For the Appellant: Prateek Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondent: ---------.



Judgment Text

Pankaj Mithal, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. A suit for cancellation of sale-deed was decreed on 19.7.1993 against the petitioners, Petitioners applied for setting aside the d

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ecree on 12.4.1999 under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. After about 10 years of the filing of the said application, petitioners moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The Court below by the order dated 3.10.2010 has refused to condone the delay and consequently the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has been dismissed. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the Revisional Court vide order dated 26.10.2013.

2. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Counsel of the petitioners failed to inform about the decree passed on 19.7.1993 and that they came to know of it only in the year 1999 whereupon application for setting aside the same was filed.

4. The aforesaid explanation has not found favour with the Courts below. It may be true that the Counsel for the petitioners may have failed to inform about the decree to them but nonetheless it was the duty of the petitioners to at least find out about the progress and the status of the suit time to time but they failed to care of the suit from 1993 to 1999 for about six years and made no effort to inquire about its status. It shows complete negligence on part of the petitioners. In the circumstances they cannot blame the Counsel.

5. This apart, petitioners filed delay condonation application after about 10 years of the filing of the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. and for this delay also no explanation was submitted.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Courts below have not erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

O R