1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Revision Petition No.3/2007 {Rishabh Kumar Versus Lal Chand & Another} Date of Order :: 8th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Rohan Jain for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Jain for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The matter has come up for orders on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2006 days in filing the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially he filed the civil second appeal before this Court against the order passed by first appellate court on 17th May, 2001 but the same was dismissed by this Court as not maintainable vide order dated 20th September, 2006 in view of the amendment made in Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in case the time spent in prosecuting the second appeal is excluded, their revision is within a period of limitation, therefore, delay in filing the 2 present revision petition may be condoned. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application and contended that if any time spent in prosecuting the second appeal is excluded then also the revision petition was filed after expiry of period of limitation and no explanation has been given for further delay in filing the revision petition. He, therefore, contended that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed. He also contended that apart from the limitation point in the revision petition, there is no case on merits also and for that purpose the learned counsel for both the parties referred the findings of trial court as well as first appellate court. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff – petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8000/- in the trial court which was decreed vide judgment dated 8th July, 1999. However on an appeal filed by the defendants, the first appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 9th April, 2001. As per contention of learned 3 counsel for the petitioner, the civil second appeal was preferred before this Court on 17th May, 2001 which was dismissed as not maintainable on 20th September, 2006. The present revision petition was preferred on 5th January, 2007. Even if time spent in prosecuting the second appeal from 17th May, 2001 to 20th September, 2006 is excluded in the present case, then also the revision petition has been preferred after expiry of period of limitation prescribed for it and no explanation has been given for such delay. In these circumstances, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed. 5. Apart from above, I have also examined the merits of the case. The first appellate court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff - petitioner has observed that PW-1 - plaintiff has admitted in his statements that he is not aware as to when and on what dates the amount was given as loan to defendants. He admitted that he maintains the accounts books but the same were not produced in the case to prove issue no.1. The reasonings assigned by the first appellate court for dismissal of the suit appear to be reasonable and justified in 4 comparison to the reasonings assigned by the trial court while decreeing the suit. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the first appellate court so as to interfere with the same. 6. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and consequently the revision petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK