Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. - This revision petition questioning the legality of order dated 30.10.14 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Suit No.83/13, was filed by the petitioners on 9.9.15. The petition is reported to be barred by limitation for 224 days.
2. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1953 for condonation of delay, stating that the petitioners were not aware about the order as the earlier counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners could not inform the petitioners about the order passed on account of lack of communication which was an inadvertent act. It is submitted that the petitioners have subsequently changed their counsel. According to the petitioners, it seems that since the defendants are residing outside Sri Ganganagar, the appropriate information could not be given to them.
3. A reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the petitioners have made absolutely false averment in the application that they were not informed about the order by the earlier counsel. It is submitted that the petitioners have made deliberate mis-statement and did not disclose the names of the counsels who were earlier engaged and the counsels engaged subsequently. It is submitted that the counsel for the petitioner no.1 has never changed, however, the counsel appearing for petitioner no.2 was changed and new counsel was engaged after 3� months of the passing of the order impugned by the trial court. It is stated that the petitioners are vigilant litigant who themselves submitted the application for early hearing on application under Order 7, Rule 11 , CPC and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were not apprised by the earlier lawyer regarding the order impugned being passed for a period of about 12 months falls flat.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while reiterating the stand taken in the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, submitted that since the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not inform them about the order passed on application under Order 7, Rule 11 , the petitioners could not file the petition questioning the legality of the said order immediately. It is submitted that after the change of counsel, the petitioners came to know about the passing of the order and immediately, thereafter, the appropriate steps were taken for filing the revision petition. It is submitted that the delay caused in filing the revision petition is inadvertent and bona fide and therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned.
5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents while drawing the attention of the court to the certified copies of the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the petitioners before the trial court from time to time, submitted that it is abundantly clear that so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, counsel appearing on his behalf has not been changed after passing of the order impugned and thereafter. It is submitted that the counsel appearing for the petitioner no.2 has been changed after 3� months since passing of the order impugned and therefore, the stand sought to be taken by the petitioners regarding non communication of the order due to change of the counsel, is absolutely false. Learned counsel submitted that so as to conceal the correct position regarding change of the counsel available on record, the petitioners have deliberately neither disclosed the names of the counsels engaged on their behalf from time to time nor the dates regarding the change of the counsel are mentioned in the application filed. Learned counsel submitted that the application filed by the petitioners which contains deliberate mis-statement deserves to be rejected with exemplary costs.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. It is to be noticed that in the first instance, at the time of filing of the suit, Mr. Gauri Shanker Gupta was engaged as counsel on behalf of the petitioners and vakalatnama was filed by the counsel on 21.8.13. Thereafter, on 30.9.13 the petitioner no.1 Jitendra Singh engaged Mr. Rajan Kukkar, Sita Ram and Sanjay Bhatia as the counsels vide vakalatnama dated 23.9.13. The application under Order 7, Rule 11 preferred on behalf of the petitioners was decided by the trial court vide order dated 30.10.14 and thereafter, the petitioner Jitendra Singh has not changed his counsel and the counsel already engaged by him continues to be his counsel in the matter till this date. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Veena Singh, the petitioner no.2 herein, has engaged the new counsels Amit Chhabra and others on 18.2.15.
8. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that during the course of hearing of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, Mr. Gauri Shanker Gupta, the counsel initially engaged by the petitioners had appeared before the court and not Mr. Rajan Kukkar and others who were engaged by the petitioner no.1 on 23.9.13. Be that as it may,the fact remains that the petitioner no.1 has not changed his counsel after passing of the impugned order dated 30.10.14 and therefore, the stand sought to be taken by the petitioners in the application filed that counsel earlier engaged could not inform about the passing of the order is apparently false to the knowledge of the petitioners. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners who have deliberately concealed the material facts and indulged in sheer falsehood, are not entitled for any indulgence by this court and the application preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
9. Moreover, a litigant should be vigilant enough and should keep himself informed about the pending proceedings and therefore, the bald assertions on the part of the petitioner that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the application, cannot be considered to be a plausible explanation for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioners have not been able to establish that they were prevented from filing the revision petition within limitation for sufficient cause.
10. In the result, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition shall stand dismissed as barred by limitation. The respondent shall be entitled for costs Rs. 5,000/- from the petitioners.
