Skip to content


Mohan Prakash and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Appln. No. 4 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Raj99; 1981()WLN272
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148 and 151
AppellantMohan Prakash and ors.
RespondentGulab Chand and ors.
Advocates: Dalip Singh, Adv.
Cases ReferredGobardhan Singh v. Barsati
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - section 151 & 148--peremptory order--fresh notice not filed within time allowed-noncompliance due to 'inadvertence'--held, mere inadvertence is not sufficient to extend time.;even after passing of the peremptory order and its noncompliance, if there is an important intervening reason, like serious illness or such major inevitable natural events above human control then certainly this court can invoke section 148 c.p.c.;the mere reason of an 'inadvertance' cannot be treated as sufficient for extending time in the case of peremptory order otherwise, peremptory orders would lease their desired effect.;application rejected - - in the application, as well as affidavit filed for restoration, all that, has been mentioned is that non-compliance was result of..........non-compliance as per the order of this court, dated the 20th dec., 1979.3. shri dalip singh, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the peremptory order was passed, there was winter vacations and by inadvertence, the compliance could not be made. he prayed that this court has got power under section 148, c. p. c. to restore the case, even though there mighthave been non-compliance of a peremptory order. reliance was placed on the judgment of allahabad high court in gobardhan singh v. barsati, air 1972 all 246 (fb), it was also pointed out that most of the respondents have been served and only a few remained unserved.4. i have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. in the application, as well as affidavit filed.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C. to restore S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 473/1979, which was dismissed by this Court on account of non-compliance of peremptory order, dated the 20th Dec., 1979, which reads as under :

'Issue notices on unserved respondents afresh on filing of the same. Three week's time is allowed to file fresh notices failing which the Revision Petition would stand rejected automatically.'

2. Since the above order was not complied with, the office recorded on Jan, 30, 1980 that the revision application is dismissed in non-compliance as per the order of this Court, dated the 20th Dec., 1979.

3. Shri Dalip Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the peremptory order was passed, there was winter vacations and by inadvertence, the compliance could not be made. He prayed that this Court has got power under Section 148, C. P. C. to restore the case, even though there mighthave been non-compliance of a peremptory order. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Gobardhan Singh v. Barsati, AIR 1972 All 246 (FB), It was also pointed out that most of the respondents have been served and only a few remained unserved.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. In the application, as well as affidavit filed for restoration, all that, has been mentioned is that non-compliance was result of inadvertence. It has been mentioned that the counsel for the petitioner inspected the file and then came to know that on account of the peremptory order, the case was dismissed on Jan. 30, 1980.

5. A bare assumption of the above facts would show that the intervention of the winter vacation had no relevancy. The peremptory order has been passed as mentioned, earlier on Dec. 20, 1979. Since there was three weeks' time, the petitioner-applicant could have filed fresh notices up to Jan. 10, 1980. Instead of that, not only nothing was done but as per the assertion mentioned in the application, the fact, that the peremptory order was passed, was also ignored, and the dismissal came as discovered on Feb. 20, 1980. At the time of passing of peremptory order, maximum time as prayed by the learned counsel was allowed. In case, there is any difficulty in compliance of a peremptory order, a party should seek an extension of time before the period allowed expires. In a given case, even after passing of the peremptory order and its non-compliance, if there is an important intervening reason, like serious illness or such major inevitable natural events above human control, then certainly this Court can invoke Section 148, C. P. C.

6. Unfortunately for the petitioner, no such cause has been shown in this case. The mere reason of an 'inadvertence' cannot be treated as sufficient for extending time in the case of peremptory order, otherwise, peremptory orders would lose their desired effect.

7. Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, had its peculiar features and cannot provide any guidance or assistance in this case to this Court.

8. The result is, that this application under Section 115, C. P. C., for restoring the S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 473/ 1979, fails and is, therefore, rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //