G.R. Majithia, J.@mdashThis revision petition is directed against the orders dated January 23, 1986 and March 9, 1987 passed by Additional
District Judge, Amritsar. Through the former order, the judge, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and as result thereof, the appeal
was dismissed having been filed beyond limitation Through the latter order, he dismissed the application bearing Civil Misc. No. 5 of 1986 for
recalling the order dated January 23, 1986 vide which the appeal has been dismissed as having been filed beyond limitation.
2. The examination of the file reveals that the judge framed an issue to the effect whether there are sufficient grounds for extending the period of
limitation on August 6, 1985 he adjourned the case for the evidence of the applicant on August 24, 1985. Thereafter, the case was adjourned
more than once because the Presiding Officer was on leave On January 4, 1986, the case was received by transfer by another Additional District
Judge and on that date, he fixed the case for January 23, 1956 for the evidence of the applicant. On January 23, 1986, the application for
condonation of delay was dismissed on the ground that the allegations contained therein were not supported by any material. The observation in
the order docs not indicate whether any witness was present in. the court. The first Appellate Court bad already framed the issue aid permitted the
applicant to summon the evidence. The learned counsel for the applicant maintained that be had summoned the evidence. Be that as it is, I find that
the learned Appellate Judge has acted with great haste in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, I think it will
meet the on is of justice if the order dated January 23, 1986 is set aside.
3. The application for recalling the ex-parte order dated January 23, 1986 which was registered as Civil Misc. application No. 5 of 1986 was
dismissed on wholly wrong premises. The Additional District Judge refused to recall the order dated January 23, 1986 on the ground that the
appeal was dismissed being barred by time and there was absolutely no justification for acceding to the request made by the petitioner for
restoration of the appeal. The Judge is mistaken. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed in the absence of the petitioner although
on merits The petitioner was well within his rights to move the court for recalling the order and for disposal of the application for condonation of
delay in his presence, The .observation of the Additional District Judge that since the appeal was dismissed being barred by time, he could not
entertain the application for recalling, the order is without any basis and appears, to have beep made on mistaken view of law The petitioner can
maintain the application for recalling the earlier order since it was passed in his absence. The expression on merits will not disentitle the court from
recalling the order. Resultantly, the order dated March 9, 1987 is set aside.
4. The revision petition is allowed. The file should be sent back to the District Judge, Amritsar forthwith who will either dispose of the application
u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and Civil Misc. Application No, 5 of 1986 himself or send these application to any other Additional District Judge
posted at the station for disposal. The District Judge himself or to whomsoever the applications are entrusted for disposal shall dispose them of
within three mouths from the date of receipt of the order.