AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After having heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist, I do not think that any purpose will be served by issuing notice on I.A. 2 for condonation of delay, as it will delay the proceedings further.
This revision has been filed against the Order dated 14-9-1994 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC, Anekal, in O.S. No. 324 of 1992 dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the suit challenging the Revocation Deed dated 8-8-1989 is not maintainable and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed in limine.
From the dismissal of the suit a decree has to follow. Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal lie from the decree of the Trial Court to the District Court. Under Section 115(2) of the Code it has been provided that this Court shall neither entertain, consider nor interfere with, in revision, the decree order of the Subordinate Court when there is a remedy of appeal against the decree. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff-revisionist to file an appeal before competent Subordinate Court along with an application for condonation of delay indicated therein the circumstances resulting in delay in filing the appeal.
In the circumstances, I dismiss the application, I.A. 2, for condonation of delay in filing this revision. Consequently, this revision is also dismissed keeping it open to the plaintiff to file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the Competent Court.