CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mrs. Asha Gupta and Another vs Nand Lal Barnwal and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 11 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 JH CK 0153

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.P. Bhatt, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13, 96 · Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 878 of 2012 in C.R. No. 49 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 369 words

P.P. Bhatt, J.—The present interlocutory application is filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant Civil Revision application. The other side has also filed reply to this I.A. and objected the application for condonation of delay.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-party in person as well as learned counsel for the respondents on I.A. No. 878 of 2012.

3.

Perused the application as well as reply filed by the other side.

4.

On perusal of the averments made in the petition, it appears that sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioners, which prevented them to file revision application in time.

5.

For the reasons stated in this application, the same is allowed.

6.

The delay in filing the instant Civil Revision application is hereby ordered to be condoned.

7.

I.A. No. 878 of 2012 stands disposed of.

... C.R. No. 49 of 2010 ...

8.

The present Civil Revision application is preferred against the ex parte judgment and order dated 03.02.2001, passed by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st, Bokaro at Chas.

9.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-party in person as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

10.

Perused the materials placed on record.

11.

The present Civil Revision application is preferred against the ex parte judgment and order passed by the learned court below, dated 03.02.2001 and there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners by preferring either an application under Order IX, Rule 13 or an appeal u/s 96 of the CPC and therefore, the present Revision application is required to be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer appropriate proceedings before the competent court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present Revision application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to prefer appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the competent court having jurisdiction. It is made clear that the pendency of the present Civil Revision application before this Court shall not come in the way of the present petitioners for filing an appropriate proceeding as permissible under the law. As and when such proceedings are preferred before the court below, the court below shall consider the question of limitation.