- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. Heard SriAjay Rajendra,learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision is finally decided with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) AGAINST an ex pane decree passed against the revisionists, an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. alongwith an application under Section 5 of the In dian Limitation Act was filed by the revisionist. No counter-affidavit to this ap plication under Section 5 of the Limita tion Act was filed by the respondent Bank. Since the averments made in the applica tion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was uncontroverted, the court below was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act merely on assumptions and supposi tion. The Court below has failed to exer cise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. Therefore, the order dated 1-10-1999 can not be upheld. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 1-10-1999 passed by the Court below is set aside. The case is remitted back to the Court below with the direction to decide the applica tion under Section 5 of the Indian Limita tion Act afresh within three months from today, after giving an opportunity of hear ing to the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the revisionists are directed to file a certified copy of the order before the Court below within two weeks from today. Revision allowed. .;