IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.489 of 2007 SURESH KUMAR SINGH Versus RAMA NAND MAHTO ----------- 5 2/7/2008 No one appears for the petitioner. By the impugned order the court below has rejected the limitation petition filed in support of condonation of delay in filing Title Appear No. 155 of 2006 which is said to be barred by limitation of 317 days. The grounds recorded for dismissing the limitation petition and consequently the appeal does not appear to be correct, in as much, when it was stated in the limitation petition that the petitioner had no knowledge about the judgment and decree, the same could not have been dismissed on the ground that the suit was decreed on contest. It is true that the knowledge of counsel for the petitioner in the suit to the effect of dismissal of suit may be construed or may be also constructive knowledge of the petitioner, but then in case a plea was taken about lack of knowledge, the court below was required to look into the same with more details. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the limitation petition and consequently dismissing the appeal does not seems to be correct and the same is hereby quashed. Let the petitioner appear before the appellate court, who will now reconsider the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay which would take lenient view in the matter of condonation of limitation considering that the 2 case has to be decided on merits and not on technicalities. This application is accordingly allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar