HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) AS per the office report, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and legal representatives 1 to 5 of respondent No. 1 have refused to accept notice. Since five legal representatives of respondent No. 1 have been served, the estate of respondent No. 1 is sufficiently represented.
(2.) THE plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 1.4.2004, whereby delay of about nine months in filing the appeal was not condoned. The suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 5.8,2002. The plaintiff applied for certified copy of the said judgment on 26.5.2003 and filed the appeal on 30.5.2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that he came to know about the dismissal of the suit only on 24.5.2003 through some villagers and rushed to his counsel on 25.5.2003.
(3.) THE learned first Appellate Court declined to condone delay on the ground that even the copy of the judgment was applied for after more than nine months and that it cannot be believed that a litigant shall not enquire about the case for nine months and, therefore, declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.;