TEVA BARIHANI Vs. CHANDANTOLA BARIHANI
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) A preliminary, decree for partition was passed on 17-2-1965 by the learned subordinate Judge of Bolangir in T. S. No. 1318 of 1963. In course of the final decree proceeding, defendants other than defendant No. 2 filed an application before, the Court that the final decree should be passed in terms of the compromise petition dated 22nd of January, 1966. Admittedly, the compromise had not been signed by the second defendant. Ultimately the trial Court refused to record the compromise as it had not been signed by the second defendant Other defendants filed Civil Revision No. 313 of 1969. The civil revision was dismissed as an appeal lay under Order 43, Rule 1 (m) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A miscellaneous appeal was fifed before the District Judge with an application to condone the delay caused by prosecuting the civil revision in the High Court.
(2.) THE learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on two grounds; that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the compromise cannot be recorded as it was not in accordance with law.
(3.) IN the peculiar circumstances of this case when the civil revision was pursued in good faith, the delay should be condoned. The explanation given here is quite satisfactory and is accepted.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.