AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This application has been made under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit. Along with this application another application has also been made u/s 5 of the Limitation Act stating that a delay of 57 days in filing the restoration application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC be condoned. In the entire application, no reason has been given for condonation of delay. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.8.2008 in presence of the Counsel for both the parties, since the witness of the plaintiff had not been appearing for his examination continuously for more than a year. The application for restoration, if at all lied, could have been filed within period of 30 days. Despite knowing that the suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution, no reason has been given why the application was not filed within 30 days and no explanation has been given of delay of 57 days. The only thing stated in the application is that the reason given in the other application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC be considered as part of the reasons given in the application. I find no ground to allow this application. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Consequentially, the application IA No. 14693/09 for restoration of the suit, which has been made beyond the period of limitation, also stands dismissed.