Raj Kumari vs Vipan Kumar (Deceased) Through Lrs And Others

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J

The petitioner by way of the present petition has laid challenge to the order dated 30.09.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.96 of 2018, in Case Registration No.617/2018, titled, Raj Kumari vs. Vipan Kumar and others, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Order 22 Rule 3, 4 CPC, was dismissed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts for adjudication of the present Revision Petition are that the petitioner had filed an application for restoration of claim petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.08.2013.

As per the order, the petitioner had submitted in examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit that she reiterates her pleadings. In cross-examination she had stated that her father-in-law had expired and thereafter her husband also expired, hence she had filed an application being daughter- in-law of deceased-Mansha Ram.

She had admitted in unequivocal words that she was aware that the case had been dismissed, but could not file the application earlier as her husband was ill and she could not contact her counsel. She had further admitted that she is not able to produce a witness in the claim petition when it was dismissed. In cross-examination, she also admitted that her father-in-law had expired 5 years ago and her husband had expired about 3 years ago, and she had come to know about the dismissal of her case about 3 years ago.

The petitioner has also examined one Bhagi Rath as AW-2, who had submitted that Mansha Ram had met with an accident and expired in the year 2013 and son of Mansha Ram was Jagat Ram, who was suffering from paralysis. He had admitted that the claim petition had been dismissed in the year 2013 and when Mansha Ram used to attend the Court hearing, the petitioner also used to accompany him.

The learned Tribunal below on the basis of the evidence led by the petitioner had returned the findings that there is no justification for the delay of 5 years in filing the application especially when the petitioner had admitted in cross-examination that she had been aware about the dismissal of the case 3 years ago.

Keeping in view the factum that the petitioner was aware of the dismissal of the petition in default and yet did not approach the Court immediately for restoration of the claim petition, the Tribunal had rightly recorded a finding that the petitioner had failed to furnish any ground for condonation of delay in filing the application

The Tribunal below had rightly disallowed the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application, and there is neither any illegality nor perversity in the said order, which requires interference by this Court.

Consequently, the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.