ARUN BHANSALI, J. - (1.) HEARD on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 26.7.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh and the judgment and final decree dated 8.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh.
(2.) THE office calculating the limitation from the final decree has reported that the appeal is barred by 2397 days when in -fact the appeal against the preliminary decree is barred by over 11 years. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the allegations have been made against the counsel, who appeared / was engaged on behalf of the appellant, it is inter - alia stated in the application as under: - "3. That in the said suit, upon receiving the notices, present applicant -appellant entered her appearance through her counsel but the counsel engaged by her did not contest the matter properly and the suit was decreed ex parte and preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial court. The said counsel engaged by the present appellant in the matter did not even inform the present appellant regarding the decision of the said suit. However, when the revenue officers patwari, revenue inspector etc. came over the site for partition of the suit properties then only present appellant came to know of the passing of the preliminary decree in the matter. Thereafter, she filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for getting the said ex parte decree set aside." It would be seen from the above averments that the appellant has sought to lay the blame squarely on the counsel to state that the counsel engaged by her did not contest the matter properly and the counsel did not inform the appellant regarding the decision of the suit, however, no averments have been made in the application indicating as to what steps were taken by the appellant for all these years to enquire about the status of the suit.
(3.) FURTHER the composite challenge to the preliminary and final decree in the same appeal is also not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 97 CPC.;