1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19/08/2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sanad below Exh. 1 in Delay Condonation Application No. 8/2003 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application submitted by the applicant, which was submitted to condone the delay in preferring the restoring application to restore Regular Civil Suit No. 2/1996, through his power of attorney against the respondent-original defendant for permanent injunction.
2. It appears that issues came to be framed at Exh. 34 on 31/12/2001 and thereafter the suit was placed on board for recording of the evidence of the applicant-original plaintiff on 31/01/2002. It appears that on that day, the applicant-original plaintiff remained absent, however, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff remained present but did not submit the application for adjournment. It appears that thereafter on number of occasions, the matter was adjourned for recording the evidence of the applicant- original plaintiff, however, on none of the occasions, neither the applicant-original plaintiff nor his advocate remained present in the Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Court issued notice upon the applicant-original plaintiff as well the respondent-original defendant informing them the next date i.e. 10/04/2002. Though, notice was served upon the applicant-original plaintiff, the applicant-original plaintiff did not remain present on 10/04/2002. It appears that subsequently the advocate of the applicant remained present however did not submit any adjournment application. It appears that on number of occasions, the matter came to be adjourned, however, neither the applicant-original plaintiff remained present nor any application for adjournment was submitted and ultimately the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 10/07/2002 dismissed the suit for default. Thereafter, the applicant-original plaintiff submitted the application to restore the suit. However, as there was a delay of 141 days in submitting the application for restoration, the Delay Condonation Application was submitted, which was numbered as Delay Condonation Application No. 8/2003. It was the case on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff that his advocate did not inform him about the suit being dismissed for default and when the father of the applicant-original plaintiff came to know about the same on 07/09/2002 immediately certified copy was applied and received on 16/09/2002, however, at that time the father of the applicant- original plaintiff was at Mumbai on religious tour and in the meantime, the certified copy, which was obtained by his father was lost, which was found subsequently and thereafter the present application has been preferred and, therefore, it was requested to condone the delay in preferring the application to restore the suit. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 19/08/2003 dismissed the said application by holding that the applicant has failed to make out sufficient ground to condone the delay of 141 days and the explanation is not plausible at all. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sanand dated 19/08/2003 in Delay Condonation Application No. 8/2003 in not condoning the delay of 141 days the applicant-original plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Shri S.M. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in rejecting the delay condone application and in not condoning the delay of 141 days in preferring the application to restore the suit. It is submitted that as such the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff did not inform the applicant-original plaintiff with respect to dismissing the suit for default and, therefore, the delay has been caused in preferring the application to restore the suit. It is submitted that for the default on the part of the advocate, the applicant- original plaintiff should not be made to suffer and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
4. The present Civil Revision Application is opposed by Shri Jigar Patel, learned advocate appearing of Shri Dhaval Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having found that the applicant-original plaintiff has failed to show any sufficient cause in support of his prayer to condone the delay of 141 days and when it is found that the applicant and his advocate both were absolutely negligent and consequently when the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the suit filed by the applicant-original plaintiff is of the year 1996 for permanent injunction. The issues came to be framed on 31/12/2001 and since then, the suit has been adjourned on number of occasions for recording the evidence of the applicant-original plaintiff. Between January, 2002 till the suit came to be dismissed for default, neither the applicant-original plaintiff nor his advocate remained present in the Court though the matter was adjourned on number of occasions. Even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff did not even submit any application for adjournment. It is also required to be noted that despite the fact that the applicant-original plaintiff was represented through advocate, as his advocate was not remaining present, the learned trial Court issued notice upon the applicant-original plaintiff informing the applicant-original plaintiff with respect to the next date of hearing i.e. 10/04/2002 and despite the fact that the said notice was served upon the applicant-original plaintiff, neither the applicant-original plaintiff remained present nor his advocate remained present before the Court. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there was no other alternative with the learned trial Court but to dismiss the suit for default. It is required to be noted that certified copy of the order dismissing the suit for default came to be received by the father of the applicant-original plaintiff on 16/09/2002 and still the application for restoration has been filed on 01/02/2003 i.e. after a period of 141 days. The cause shown by the applicant- original plaintiff that after his father received the certified copy on 16/09/2002 he had gone to Mumbai for religious tour and the certified copy was lost and thereafter the same was found out is not believable. No supported documents have been produced in support of the above cause. Absolute vague averments have been made. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned trial Court found that no sufficient cause has been shown in support of the prayer to condone the delay of 141 days and when the learned trial Court has found that the cause shown is not believable at all and consequently when the learned trial Court has refused to condone the delay of 141 days, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error and/or illegality in dismissing Delay Condonation Application No. 8/2003, which calls for the interference of the Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1199, the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji