S.N. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS application in revision is directed against the order of the learned Distt. Judge of Gorakhpur dismissing an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing an appeal from an order refusing to restore the suit which had been dismissed Under Order à - Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Simultaneously the District Judge rejected the memorandum of appeal before him.
(2.) THE revision before me had arisen out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Defendants in the suit) from allowing opposite party No. 4 to take charge of the office of the Registrar of the University of Gorakhpur and "from paying any emoluments to him". The Plaintiff further prayed that "Defendant No. 4 be further restrained from taking charge and from acting as the Registrar of Defendant No. 1 and from accepting any emoluments from Defendant No. 1". The Applicant Sri Murlidhar Upadhyaya, who is the Plaintiff in the suit in revision, is a lawyer who practices in the district courts of Jaunpur. He had challenged the appointment of opposite party No. 4 (Defendant No. 4 in the suit) in his capacity as a person "interested in seeing the Defendant No. 1 (the University of Gorakhpur) the temple of learning in the backward regions of Gorakhpur of Uttar Pradesh occupy its due place in the academic world and to see that it runs well to serve the cause for which it has come into existence". The suit in revision was instituted on 11 -10 -66.
(3.) AN application was made by the Defendant -opposite parties for the personal presence of the Plaintiff -Applicant in court. The application was allowed and the court directed the Applicant to present himself in court on 28 -2 -67. The Applicant was not present in court on 28 -2 -67 and the case was adjourned to 14 -3 -67 and again the Applicant was directed to present himself in court on that date. Thereafter the date for hearing was changed from 14 -3 -67 to 16 -3 -67. Again the Applicant was not present in court on 16 -3 -67 and the case was adjourned to 29 -3 -67. The Plaintiff did not appear in court on 29 -3 -67 but his counsel made an application to the court for review of the order dated 27 -2 -67 by which the court had directed the personal presence of the Applicant in court. The Applicants counsel also moved an application for dispensing with the personal presence of the Plaintiff. The case again came up for hearing on 4 -4 -67 when the Applicant was not present in court and the trial court dismissed the suit Under Order à - Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Applicant filed an application on 5 -4 -67 for setting aside the order dated 4 -4 -67 dismissing the suit and for restoring the suit to its original number. The application was dismissed on 18 -12 -67. The Applicant filed an appeal on 6 -2 -68 from the order dated 18 -12 -67. It was one day beyond time and an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On 24 -8 -68 the court dismissed the application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also rejected the memorandum of appeal.;