2001 (12) TMI 905

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....side and application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been dismissed. 3. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration that deed of conveyance dated 10th October, 1980 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was void and for recovery of possession of the property conveyed thereunder. The plaintiffs had settled abroad in Thailand and appointed one Shri Gurdip Singh as their attorney who appointed one Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, to represent them in the suit. On 13th June, 1988, the suit was adjourned to 20th July, 1988 but as during the night intervening between 19th and 20th July, 1988, father of the aforesaid Shri Suresh Sharma suffered he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1994 as nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs whereupon another application was filed on 21st December, 1994 for restoration of the same, which was dismissed on 19th September, 1995 by the trial court. When the said order was challenged by way of C.R. No. 556 of 1996 filed before the High Court, the same was allowed on 27th August, 1996, by which order of trial court was set aside and application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code which was filed on 18th October, 1988 for restoration of the suit was restored and the trial court was directed to dispose of the same on merit. It may be stated that after remand, on 28th October, 1997 a petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restorat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same. It appears that in the application for restoration, all relevant facts have been stated not only to show that the plaintiffs had sufficient cause for non appearance on 24th August, 1988 but also to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. This is the reason why in the petition for condonation of delay, it has been simply stated that facts stated in the restoration application may be taken into consideration for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. Therefore, merely because in the order of trial court, specifically, there is no reference to petition for condonation of delay, it cannot be said that it did n....