AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Sodhi, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.
There was delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the lower appellate Court. The memorandum of appeal was accompanied by an application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer that the delay be condoned. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs-respondents. An issue whether there was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay was framed by the learned District Judge and the case was posted for evidence. On May 25, 1995, the appellant before the lower appellate Court (petitioner herein) was granted the last opportunity to produce its evidence on 1.9.1995. 1.9.1995 was declared a Court holiday and the learned District Judge was on leave on the following day i.e. 2.9.1995. The Court Reader under the instructions of the Presiding Officer fixed the case for evidence for 4.10.1995 on which date the evidence was not present and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. It is against this order of the District Judge that the present revision petition has been filed.
As is clear from the order sheet as produced in the grounds of revision, 4.10.1995 was the date fixed for the petitioner to produce its evidence. It is common case between the parties that the date was fixed by the Court Reader. This is not permissible in law. The date could be fixed only by the Presiding Officer and the reader could post the case only for proper orders. Consequently, the impugned order dated 4.10.1995 is set aside and the case remanded to the District Judge, Gurdaspur with a direction to proceed with the application in accordance with law. The petitioner-appellant will be allowed one more opportunity to produce its entire evidence on the date to be fixed for the purpose.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court on 6.8.1996 for further proceedings. No costs.