Manorama Devi vs Binay Kumar Gupta

Mr. Amitav K. Gupta, J.—I.A No. 914 of 2016

The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 60 days in preferring the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not raised any serious objection.

Considering the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation has been given for the delay, accordingly the delay is, hereby, condoned and I.A. No.914 of 2016 stands allowed.

L.A. No. 6059 of 2015

The instant Interlocutory Applications has been filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of the C.P.C for substituting the legal heirs/ representatives of appellant/petitioner no.14, namely, Binod Singh, in C.M.P, who died on 24.06.2015 leaving behind his legal heirs/ representatives as mentioned in para no.5 of the supporting affidavit and further prays for deleting/expunging the name of appellant no.2, namely, Raju Singh, who died issueless on15.5.2015.

Learned counsel for the respondent has not raised any serious objection.

Considering the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, the name of legal heirs/ representatives of deceased appellant/petitioner no.14, namely, Binod Singh, as mentioned in para no.5 of the supporting affidavit be substituted in place of deceased appellant no.14, and abatement, if any, is hereby set aside.

So far as appellant/petitioner no.2 is concerned, his name is deleted from the cause title at the risk of the appellant/petitioner.

Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner shall carry out the necessary corrections in the cause title in red ink.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6059/15 stands allowed.

C.M.P. No. 71 of 2014

The present application has been filed for restoration of second appeal bearing S.A No.66 of 2007 to its original file, which stood dismissed on 7.02.2014 due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 31.01.2014 whereby the petitioner was directed to take fresh steps for service of notice within a week.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case was listed on 31.1.2014 before the Hon''ble Court but the counsel due to mistake could not mark the case in the cause list, hence he could not appear and he had no knowledge about the peremptory order. That he got the knowledge after he received a copy of dismissal order on 13.2.2014, where after he came to know that due to non-filing of requisites of notice upon respondent nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 11 the case was dismissed. That earlier petitioner had taken steps for service of notice upon the aforesaid respondents in compliance of the order dated 13.7.2012 and 19.7.2012 but the notice could not be served upon the respondents. It is submitted that the non-appearance of the learned counsel was not deliberate or intentional rather it was due to non marking of the case. It is submitted that the second appeal has been admitted and petitioner has a good case and if the second appeal is not restored to its original file the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not raised any serious objection.

Considering the reasons assigned in the instant petition, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation has been given for noncompliance of the order, accordingly, C.M.P.No.71 of 2014 stands allowed and S.A. No.66 of 2007 is directed to be restored to its original file.

Office is directed to list the case i.e. S.A.No.66 of 2007 under the appropriate heading on 11.3.2016.