CR- 452/2004 -Rawata & Ors. Vs. Valbharam & Ors. : Order dt.17.7.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.452/2004 Rawata & Ors. Vs. Valbharam & Ors. Date of order : 17th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Subhas Kumar for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Joshi for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.10.2004 of learned District Judge, Sirohi whereby the learned District Judge has rejected the appeal of the defendant-appellants as time barred. 3. By the impugned decree, the learned trial court had decreed the suit setting aside his sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 to 5 on 26.6.1990 in respect of disputed khasra No.149 measuring 10 bighas. 4. The present petitioners namely defendant No.2 to 5 before the learned trial court have alleged in the revision petition that the defendant No.1 had entered into compromise with the plaintiff in April, 1998 and, therefore, they instructed their Advocate not to pursue the matter, however, ex-parte suit came to be decreed on 3.12.1998. The present petitioners came to know of such ex-parte decree only on 22.4.1999 and immediately after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 5.5.1999, the appeal was filed. The appellate Court, however, did not condone the delay and dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as CR- 452/2004 -Rawata & Ors. Vs. Valbharam & Ors. : Order dt.17.7.08 2/2 well as the appeal itself. 5. Being aggrieved of the said order of the learned District Judge, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsels and considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the learned appellate court has erred in rejecting the appeal as time barred because the facts and circumstances narrated before the learned appellate court as well as before this Court indicate that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause in filing the said appeal within limitation and the delay occurred on account of reasonable and justified reasons. While holding that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Court judgments have pointed out that a liberal approach should be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The learned District Judge failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in true perspective and dismissed the appeal as time barred. The delay in question was not so huge so as to deny the relief to the petitioner-defendants on this ground. 7. Therefore, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of learned District Judge, Sirohi dated 5.10.2004 is set aside and the appeal no.17/1999 is restored to the learned District Judge Sirohi for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.12 babulal/-