A^ft-- APPLICANT/: (Responderit)/ (Plaintiff No.2) NON-APPLICANTS/: (Applicant)/ (Defendant) (Respondent)/ (Respondent)/ Lakshffli Prasad, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Shri Bisahu, R/o Viliage Satouro, Tehsil Masturi, &isti'. iilaspur (C.6.) Versus 1. Nationa! Thermal Power Corporation, Seepat, Office Bilaspur, Through Chief Officer/Sener-cl Manager, N.T.P.C., Seepat, Distt. BWspw (C.6.) 2. t)horarp Singh, a9ed 49 years, S/o Late Shri Bisdiu. 3. Amar Singh, aged .36 years, S/o Late Shri Bisahu. 4. Vyash Narayan, aged 33 years, S/o Late'Shri Bisahu. 5. Parnneshwar, aaed 32 years, S/o Late Shri Babula!. 6. Ishwar Singh, aged 30 years, S/o Late Shri Babuial. 7. Bhuneshwar Sin9h, aged 27 years, S/o Late Shri Babulal. Rajeshwar Singh, aged 25 years, 5/o Late Shri Babulal. . - 9. Dhoinanjaya, a9ed 18 years, S/o Late Shri Babula, Teli. All residents of Village Satouro, Tehsil Masturi, Distt. Bitaspur (C.6.) 10. Smt. Jamuna Bai, aged 75 years, W/o Shri Mohaniai, R/o Village Kanhai Banda, Tehsil Janjgir, bistt. Janjgir- Champa (C.(3.) 11; State of C.6., through the Collector, Bilaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur 12. Sub-tSivisional Officer, Bilaspur, Tehsi! & Distf. Bilaspur (C.6.) {Civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Jis^g fe Present: . None present for the applicant. Dr". N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.D. 6uru, Advocate for noi applicant No.l. AAr. P.R. Patmkar, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-oppiicants No.ll (& 12. Sinale Bench: Hon'b!®Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (25-2-2009) 1. None present for the applicant. No representation is made. 2. None present for non-applicants No.2 to 10, though served. 3. I hwe heard learned counsei appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.l & the State/non-applicants No.ll <& 12 and perused the revision. 4. This reyision is directed against the order dated 21-11-2007 passed by the 6+ Additiona! District Jud9e, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.l7-A/2007, whereby learned Additional Oistrict Judge allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short'the Act') and condoned the delay in fiiing the appeal. 5. The order is challenged on the 9round that any appeal filed after the period of limitation should be dismissed in accordance with Section 3 of the Act and before allowing the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Act, opportunity of hearing to the opposite party is sine qua non, but the Court below has not afforded opportunity of hearing to th®present applicant and has passed the order which is withoutjurisdiction. 6. It has been prayed on behatf of the applicant that the revision be atlowed and the appeai pendin9 before the Court below be disposed of finolly on the ground of limitation. 7. Gr. N.K, Shukla, learned counse! appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.l, submits that the Court below has not afforded opportunity of hear-ing to the parties and allowed the cspplication filed Under Section 5 of the Act,but this irre9u!arity may be cured and the Court may consider the application fiied on —3= ,,-|D3ddD 344. JD3L| 04. apisap 'tt a|HJ ^apun Suuoaif ^a+j.o '4.0U ssop 4.ino^ 3L|+ SD 6uo| os pa|!^ aq o+ pssodoud si josddo at{4. I.IOIIJM +SUID6D aa^sap 3L|+ ^o uoi+nssxa j.o Ao+s Sl^. JO^. JSpJO UC 3>|DUI +OU ||DL|S i.jno') 31.J+ '(l) ajnu-qng uspun apDUi usaq 504 uoi+osiiddo UD ajSL)/^ (g) •aq ADIU 3SD3 3LJ4. SD 'g^ a|nj jo ^I s|n.i JSpun |osdcte SL)+ LI+IM |osp 04. spsasojd 4.1 ajoj.aq +uno3 3Lj4. Xq papissp AIIOUIJ. sq ||Di|s J3+4.01U 344. puD +uapuodssj 3i|+ 04. panssi aq ||OL|S j.osjs^ asi+ou '+uspuodss^ 344. 04. 331+ou o j.o anssi 3ij+ +noLj4.jm uoj4.03!|ddo 3^4. 4-38^ o+ uosoSti ou ssas +>ino3 ai|+ j.1 (g) •pousd ^sns UILJ+IM losddo a^ Buujsj.ajd +ou jo^ ssnos ^.u'aim^.j.ns PDL| SL| +Di|4. 4.^003 344. X^.SI+D? o+ s3j|sj +UD||sddD 3L|4. Lj31l|M UO S+3D.I. St|+ ij+joj. Suiuss ^iAnpij.j.D Xq pa+joddns UOI+D31|ddD UD Aq p3jUDdUi033D 8q ||Dt|S 4.1 'J0^.3JSL|+ pSjj.lSsdg uoi+o+iiuii j.o pouad 344. J.O Xjidxs 3L|+ >is+j.o ps4.uass.id si |D3ddc UD uatj^ (^)—-Ao|apj.o uoi+ouopuoo .lOj. uoi+osijddy •yg,, - :SMO[|OJ. SD EpD3^ SpO^ 3LJ4. j.O tfr ^SpJO j.0 ^g 9[ny •spo^ stj+ j.o yg a|ny ^ JspJQ ti+im ssuopjoooo u] jDsddo 3Lj+ 6u!|!j. ui XD|ap ^o uoi-i.ouopuoo joj. uoi+osiiddo sij4. uo /4->iod a+isoddo 31)4. 04. asi+ou anssi o+ pa^inbaj si 4-1no3 344. uaL|4. 'uoi+oai|ddo atj4. ssiiusip 04. uosoaj ou S! 8^344. 4.DL|4. saij.si+os ^.jnoy ai|+ j.i puo apo^ aij4. j.o yg a|ng •(f jspJQ I[+IM sauDp^ooso ui 'pouad' upns UII.J4.1M [Dsddo ai|+ Sui^jsj.s^d +ou joj. asnos +ua]ai^j.ns poL| sij +oi|4. 4.jno3 aijj. Aj.siyos 04. sa![3>i 4.uo||addo 31)4. LjsiLjm uo s+soj. SLJ^. 4<.joj. 6ui+4.ss +iADp]j.j.D Aq pa+joddns uoi+toijddD uo s]!j. o+ psuinbaj si +uo||addD ai|4. 'UOI+D+IUIIJ ^o pousd SLJ+ ^O Xjldxa 31)4. ^3+^.0 ps+uass^d jo psjij. silosddo UD uatj/y\ 'spo^ aL]+ j.o •[p japJQ .ispun psqussa.td usaq SDL| |csdcb a^ 6u]josL| puo Suiijj. MJ. a^npssoj^ -g •4.uo3i|ddo 4.uasajd/2'o[\| ^!+u;o|d/4.uapuods3>i 31^4. -a-j /<4.JDd a+isoddo 31(4. o+ 6uuDat| ^o A+iun+.ioddo Xuo Suip^oJ.J.o 4.noL[4.!» sAop 99 J.o (DsddD ai|+ j.o 6ui|ij. ui Ao|ap ^.o uoi+ouopuos joj. •[•o^ 4.uo3[[ddo-uou j.o J.in^aq' uo pa|!j. uoi+D3!|ddo 344. psmo|p SDL| mo|3q ^no^ aL|4. 'uo!4.&|.iuii| j.o uoi^ssnb 3L|4. uo yo^ 4.UD3i|ddD-uou Suuoai^ •lai.J.o 'ZOOZ'TT-Tg U0 '•'ndsD|ig 'sSpnf 4.3^+siq [Duoi+ippy ^9 344- a.ioj.sq uisjsui rofsj +uo3i[dcb-uou ^o j.|i>L|aq uo ps|!J. som dspo^ 34+, ^oufs -loj.) gogt 'a^npasoJej \\My ^.o apoy 31)4. j.o 95 uoi+sag japun |Daddy •s-l.uauinoop/s^iap^o JSL|+O j.o sa!do3 puo psu6ndui! japjo 31)4. pasniiad aADij i 'g •/<B|ap j.o spunoj6 31)4. 6uiuiD]dx3/6u!4.04.s +iAcpi^D Xq pa^oddns S4.UD3i|ddo-uou SL]4. j.o j.|0t|aq Soma 10. Admittedly, in the light of the provisions of Rule 3A of Order 41 of the Code and Section 5 of the Act, providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite pa,rty is sine quanonw\A the opposite part/ may satisfy the Court that the appellant is not haying any ground for explaining the delay in filing the oppeai and on such cases, the appeal filed after the period of limitation moy be dismissed. In this case, the Court below has not provided opportunity to the applicant herein in accordance with ftuie 3A of Order 41 of the Code and thereby committed itlegality. Order impugned is not sustainable. 11. Consequently the revision is allowed and the order dated 21-11-2007 passed by the 6 Additional bistrict Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.l7-A/2007 is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the fir-st appellqte Court for providing opportunity of hearin9 to both the parties and to pass order afresh on the application filed under Section 5 of the Act. 12.1.A.Nos.l, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 thus stand disposed of. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge fe& V -A-^