:&>. 's^-;..^ ^ HIGH ccxmr or aaHAmsGARH AT BILAWVR CivU Revislon No. 78 Of ^109 H<m-a»pttcattt» Re»ooad®at» Versus 1) 2) Thakur Jeevraldiaa ^mgfa^ S/o late Shri Maixsiagh, aged aboBt 76 yeara, Occupatioa Legal Profes^oai, Reaideat of Bramhanpara, Rajnaiidgaon (C.G.). Roopchaad Devaaaigaaiy aged about 41 years, soii late Bhaga'fflaai Devaaigaxi, BNC Mills Worteer, Resident of Sonarpara, Ward No. 22, Rajaaxidgaoii, Distdct Rajnaadgaoii (CG<). Madaa Shrivastava, S/o Not tonowa, aged about 86 years^ rc^ident of behiad Civil Court Rajxiaadgaoii, Distdct Rajnaad^ion (C.G.). CIVIL RBVI8ION UMDBR SBCUnON 118 OF THB CODB OP CIVIL PROCBDVRB. (8B :Hon'ble M».TJP.SIiwnaa, J.) Present: - Mr, H.B. Agrawal^ Sr. Advocate with Ms. MEeera Jaiawal^ Advocate for the appUc^ant/petitioner. None for the respondenta* QRMrOM&]BR (Passedon 19/10/20t0) 1. By fhxs civfl revision petitioner has chaBeagcd fhe l^aKly aad piopricly of fhe judgiaent and dccrce dated 19/2/2(M^ passed toy First Additional Distdct Judge, Rajnaodgaon ia ChdB Appeal No. 7- B/2008 whereby appeal ffled oa befaaH' of fhe petitioaer has beea dismissed as iacompetent under Order 41 Rule 1(3) of fhe Ciwfl Proceduie Code, 1908 (in ahort *tlie Code^. 2, Mr, H.B. Agrawal, Sr, Advocate witfa Ms. M^ % Jaisi^^ Advoeate for fhe applicaat/petitioaer are heaixl, 3, Jud@oaent aaid deeree impugned perused, -^- ^>- 4* Leanied couasel for tiae petitioaer vehemeatly argucsd fhat a^peal filed oa behalf of the petitioaer was willria Ittmtatiaa biit by mistaken petitloner bas not fifcd fhe copy of ffeie judgmeiit as required uader Oider 41 Rute 1(3) oftibe Code but afterwaxds he has filed ihe copy of fhe judgment along wifh appMcatioa imder Section 151 of fhe Code for takiag copy ofjudgment oa record wfaiefa was dismissed and fiaaally appeal was dismissed as lacompeteat and aot ixiamtafaiable, 5, Learaed counsel for tfae petitioner ftErtfa^r siibiidts fhat defaaalt WBB curable and Court below was under obUgation to retura fhe memo of appeal for ffling aftesh after comptyiiig fhe pxovisioits of undar Order41 Rule l(3) offhe Code. 6, Leanied counsel for fhe i»titk>nerpteced iieliance ia (te matter of Ja|sat DIriali Bhaar^awa v. Jawalua Lal Bhar|pava aad otiiero rcported in AIR 1961 8C 832 in which Supreme Court has hd^l fhat in case copy of decree was not fited aloag witii the memo of appeal on account of the fact fhat decree was aot drawxi up by fhe Coisrt below fhen fhe Utigants are mquired to pxotesct agaiast tfae defaiiilt coinmitted or negKgcnce shown by fhe Court or ite officers ia diacharging its duty and Oourt WSBS required to rettica fhe appeal for filiag afi-esh after removiag ftie de&ult 7» In fhe present case siiit fixr xecovexy of moiiey as a cowisel fees along wifh interest was dismissed by tlie 18t Cwil Judge Clas8-I, Rajaandgaon vide order dated 11/10/2007 in civil aiiit No. 2- B/2007 same was challenged before the lower appellate Courfc Copy of fhe judgment of tfae tdal Court was fited aloxig with memo of appeal in aceordance witihi under Order 41 Rute 1(3) of the Gode ^^i'^|^|;ifJ^j^J^JJI?JJiJ|J^ -^- ^ subsequenfly, copy ofjudgment w^s filed atoxig wifh. oae appMcattoa zuader Section 151 of ffae Code for takiiig tibie same on record which , was dismissed by fhe tower appellate Court. As per judgmeiit offhe lower appeUate Court petitfoxier has not filed aaay applicsrtic^i fiw condonation ofdelay in fiUng such copy ofjudgs»atwNch. was aine- quo-nonfor filiag aJong wifhi memo ofappeal, 8. In fhe present case petitioi^r hiaxself is aa adw)cate aad was rcpresented by fhe advocate aad siiit was for recoveiy ofRs. 3^/- counsel fees along witih. iaterest of 18% reasoas best knowxi to ftoe petitioner, petitioiier has not filed copy ofj^dgmeat, Defioite^ in absence ofcopy ofjudgao^at as required uader Oixier 41 Rute 1(3) af fhe Code appeal was not competeat evea after disixiisssd of a^dication uiider Section 151 of fhe Code petitioxier liad iijot fited any application for coadonation of delay in filiag such copy of Judgment, ia these circuinstaace xio oplSon except to dismiss ttoe appeal was teft to fhe lower appdUate Court aaad Court below has dismissed fhe appeal. Court below has neifher exceeded jiirisdteticm vested on it nor faOed to exercise fhe jurisdiction vested on it Court below has also not coiamitted any ittegrfity ia dfemissiag fhe aypeall fhierefore, I do not fiiid any scope of mterfereiice m exerd^se of revisioiial jurisdiction ia judgment aad decree impitgaed, Consequently, civil revMon is liabte to be disaaiissod aad is heroby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •r^