- (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dt. 19. 3. 1993 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10/93 confirming the order dated 4. 12. 1992 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 42/85.
(2.) AN appeal was preferred in the matter of the provisional determination of rent by the present petitioner-defendant before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the order dated 4. 12. 1992 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide this order dated 4. 12. 1092, the petitioner defendant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 24,806/- against the due amount of the areas of the rent. Against this order dated 4. 12. 1992, appeal was preferred on 3. 2. 1993 along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The condonation of delay was sought on the grounds that the matter was argued on 4. 12. 1992 and the Presiding Officer told that the order will be pronounced of the same date after some time. The learned counsel for the defendant had to leave Jaipur for Vajirpur as he had received an information with regard to the death of his near relation. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, for this reason, could not appear in the court on 5. 12. 1992. However, the clerk of the lawyer had heard the order on 4. 12. 1992 and had noted the next date in this case as 22. 1. 1993, 6. 12. 1992 was Sunday and it has been stated in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act that on 7. 12. 1992 curfew was clamped in Jaipur City following Ayodhya troubles. It has been then stated that before the curfew could be lifted, winter break commenced in the courts and the clerk forgot to inform the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and the defendant petitioner was not informed about the aforesaid order. When the matter came up before the trial court on the next date i. e. 22. 1. 1993, the learned counsel for the defendant came to know about the order with regard to depositing the amount and thereafter the application for the certified copy was moved on 23. 1. 93 and the appeal was filed on 3. 2. 1993 and thus there was a delay of a period of about one month in filing the appeal. The learned Additional & District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur who decided the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10/93 vide impugned order dated 19. 3. 1993 has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions which were made before him. He has mentioned that nonmaterial facts have been given in the application for condonation of delay in as much as the name of the near relation who is said to have expired was not disclosed, it had not been given as to upto which date the curfew continued nor it has been disclosed as to for what hours and on what dates the curfew was relaxed during the whole period of curfew or for how many hours it was lifted and on what dates, no averment has been made with regard to making of any effort during winter break to know as to what order has been passed on 4. 12. 1992, neither the name of the clerk of the lawyer has been disclosed nor the affidavit of the clerk had been filed and even the affidavits which have been filed in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act by the appellant and his counsel were vague. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge held that no cogent reasons have been shown for the delay and therefore, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City , Jaipur in his discretion did not find it to be a fit case for condonation of delay. Shri Keshote has vehemently argued that the counsel did not inform the petitioner defendant about the order which had been passed on 4. 12. 1992 and the counsel has said so in the application seeking condonation of delay that he did not inform the plaintiff-defendant about the order passed on 4. 12:1992 and that the learned counsel himself came to know about this order on 22. 1. 1993 only. Shri Keshote submits that it was fault of his counsel and he did not inform the petitioner-defendant therefore, the delay should have been condoned and it should have been held that the petitioner defendant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. I have gone through the order dated 19. 3. 1993 as also the contents of the application dated 3. 2. 1993 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and the affidavits of the petitioner-defendant and his counsel filed in support of this application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. I have also perused the record of the case of the trial court which has been called in this revision petition proceedings before this court. I do not find it a fit case of interference with the order dated 19. 3. 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the following reasons : - (i) It was the discretion of Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur who passed the order on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay or not to condone the delay. He has recorded reasons in so many words for not believing the version of the petitioner-defendant and his counsel in want of sufficient' and necessary details and particulars. (ii) It has been stated in para No. 4 of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act that before the curfew could be lifted, the winter break started but during the course of arguments it was pointed by Shri Ranjan that the curfew had continued only upto 13. 12. 92 and this statement of Shri Rajan has not been controverted by Shri Keshote. Thus, it is not at all convincing that the winter break had commenced even before the curfew could be lifted because the winter break had admittedly commenced from 21. 12. 1992. (iii) Whether the counsel for the petitioner defendant had informed him or not about the passing of the order dated 4. 12. 1992, it was primarily the duty of the petitioner defendant himself to have gone to the lawyer's office if not to the court and enquired either from the clerk or from the lawyer as to what had happened on 4. 12. 1992 and what is it that he was required to do and for this purpose there was enough time viz. two days before the curfew and number of days after the curfew was lifted. The petitioner defendant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act but has not made any averment therein to the effect that at any point of time on or after 4. 12. 1992, he went to his lawyer's office to know as to what had happened on 4. 12. 1992. The curfew was clamped on 7. 12. 1992 and, therefore, the petitioner-defendant himself could have rnquired about the order on 4th/5th/6. 12. 1992 and thereafter subsequent to 13. 12. 1992 and even during the period of winter break, the courts are closed but the lawyer's office is not closed. I am, therefore, not impressed with the submissions made by Shri Keshote that the whole burden was on the lawyer's shoulders and because the lawyer did not inform his client about passing of the order dated 4. 12. 1992, he was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. If such a view is taken and the whole burden is cast on the lawyer only to inform about the order passed on the particular date no litigant would feel his responsibility as to what he has to do in such litigations where the amount are required to be deposited against the rent in a given time. The case in which the amounts are required to be deposited in terms of the order passed by the court and that too under a time bound programme as prescribed by statute, the failure of which leads to adverse consequences, the defaulting party cannot get away by saying that the lawyer did not inform him. The party itself has to be vigilant and has to act with due care and caution because ultimately it is the party which has to suffer the adverse consequence. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner-defendant himself has not been vigilant and careful enough to take due care to know as to what orders has been passed on the particular date and what he was required to do. He did not make any effort whatsoever on and after 4. 12. 1992 rather slept over the matter and it is not the caste of the petitioner-defendant that he did not know about the date of 4. 12. 1992 or as to for what purpose the matter was to be heard or was heard on 4. 12. 1993. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that in passing the order dated 19. 2. 1993 the learned Additional Sessions Judge had committed any irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 115 of C. P. C. so as to warrant interference by this court u/s 115 of C. P. C.
(3.) THIS revision petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. .;