AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gohal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this misc. appeal, the order dated 27.07.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. l, Chittorgarh in civil Misc. Case No. 65/96 is under challenge, whereby, the learned trial Court while dismissing the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act rejected the application for restoration of appeal also.
Admittedly, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the counsel for appellant on 15th December, 1995. Thereafter, an application for restoration of appeal alongwith an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed, but no affidavit in support of application was filed. Therefore, learned trial Court while rejecting the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, rejected the application for restoration of appeal also.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that in view of the judgment rendered by this Court reported in RLW 1998 (1) Raj. 165 (Gopi Lal v. Sundar Lal and Ors.), admittedly against the order of rejection of an application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, only revision lies. Therefore, this misc. appeal is not maintainable.
After perusing the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the respondents and taking into consideration the facts of this case, this misc. appeal is not maintainable because this appeal has been filed against the order of rejection of application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act against which, revision is maintainable.
In this view of the matter, this misc. appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, in view of the judgment of Gopi Lal (supra) the appellants are free to invoke revisional jurisdiction.