RAM NANDAN SINGH Vs. RAM NANDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff -respondent is the petitioner This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 24 -8 -2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge 3rd Court, Begusarai, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1996, whereby he has restored MTA No. 36 of 1989. to its original file.

(2.) THE present petitioner had instituted Title Suit No. 24 of 1960/12 of 1989 in the civil Court of Begusarai which was decreed. The present opposite parties had preferred Title Appeal No. 36 of 1989 in the Court of learned District Judge, Begusarai. By order dated 1 -12 -1995, the same was dismissed for non -prosecution on account of non -appearance of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The appellants thereafter, filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 19 CPC before the same Court for restoration of the appeal to its original file which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1996. The same was allowed by order dated 9 -9 -1998, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 250.00 . The cost was not deposited within the time granted by the Court and, therefore, the order of restoration did not take effect. The appellants thereafter, filed an application under Sec. 148 CPC on 31 -5 -2000 stating therein that the amount of costs had been deposited on that date and therefore, the appeal may be restored. The same was allowed by order dated 28 -6 -2000, whereby the appellants ' application dated 31 -5 -2000 was allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 2000.00 to be deposited within one week subject to which the appeal stood restored to its file. The appellant once again failed in depositing the costs within the time granted by the Court and once again an application was filed u/s. 148 CPC on 17 -8 -2000, standing therein that the costs of Rs. 2000.00 had been deposited on that date and, therefore, the appeal may be restored to its file. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned Additional District Judge 3rd Court, Begusarai, has allowed the same by the impugned order dated 24 -8 -2001.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties submits in oppositioin that the provisions of sec. 148 CPC are wide enough to cover the impugned order. He relieson the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in -, Mahanth, Ram Das V/s. Ganga Das. He next submits that the orders dated 9 -9 -1998,28 -6 -2000 and 24 -8 -2000 are not final orders and are, therefore, not appealable within the meaning of Order XLIIII, Rule 1 CPC.