AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In a suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent in this original petition against the second respondent, the first respondent-plaintiff sought for attachment of immovable property. An order of attachment was passed by the court on 12.11.2013. Claiming title on the basis of a Sale Deed executed on that very day viz. 12.11.2013 by the second respondent, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition as IA 2283/2014, under Order 38 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Claim Petition was enquired into and was dismissed as per order dated 31.10.2014 finding the Sale to be sham.
Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, the petitioner filed CMA 3/2015 accompanied by an application as IA 84/2015 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. As per order dated 05.06.2015, the application to condone the delay viz. IA 84/2015 was dismissed since no steps were taken for service of notice and also in view of the fact that there was no representation for the appellant. Consequent to the dismissal of the delay petition, the appeal CMA 3/2015 was also dismissed as time barred.
Seeking restoration of the appeal, the petitioner herein-appellant filed IA 630/2015 wherein the prayer was for restoration of the CMA. Since there was no application seeking restoration of the delay petition IA 84/2015, the learned District Judge dismissed IA 630/2015. The aforesaid orders of dismissal of IA 84/2015 for default, the consequential dismissal of CMA 3/2015 and the dismissal of the restoration application IA 630/2015 are under challenge in this original petition.
The orders in question were passed in the year 2015. I do not find any reason to entertain this original petition at this belated stage. The order by the trial court, dismissing the claim is reasoned and supported on materials. So also, I do not find any error of jurisdiction with the orders impugned. The original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.