Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2014 passed by the District Judge, Churu, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chum has been rejected as barred by limitation. The respondents -plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellant seeking restrain against him from interfering in the possession of the suit property.
(2.) A written statement was filed by the defendant -appellant, to which a replication was also filed. The plaintiff led his evidence and after closure of evidence by the plaintiff, the trial court after granting ten adjournments and when defendant or his counsel was not present, directed to proceed ex -parte. Whereafter, learned counsel for the defendants appeared and after hearing the parties, by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal on 16.1.2012. As the appeal was barred by limitation, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. It was inter -alia claimed in the application that the appellant was not provided any opportunity of hearing, he was not aware of judgment and decree and as the appellant is employed, he is required to remain out of Churu in connection with employment, his brother Laxmi Narayan is living separately and is not on talking terms, who also did not inform him. It was, therefore, claimed in the application that when on 5.2.2012, the appellant went to the disputed plot, certain unknown persons informed him that already a judgment has been passed in favour of the plaintiff, when for the first time, he came to know about passing of the impugned judgment and decree, thereafter, the appeal is being filed without any loss of time.
(3.) THE Appellate Court after hearing the parties and examining the judgment impugned before it, came to the conclusion that the plea raised by the appellant does not make out a case for condonation of delay as the negligence of the appellant is writ large on the record and consequently, dismissed the application as well as appeal filed by the appellant.;