SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This revision petition questioning the legality of order dated 30.10.14 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Suit No.83/13, was filed by the petitioners on 9.9.15. The petition is reported to be barred by limitation for 224 days.
(2.) The petitioners have filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1953 for condonation of delay, stating that the petitioners were not aware about the order as the earlier counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners could not inform the petitioners about the order passed on account of lack of communication which was an inadvertent act. It is submitted that the petitioners have subsequently changed their counsel. According to the petitioners, it seems that since the defendants are residing outside Sri Ganganagar, the appropriate information could not be given to them.
(3.) A reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the petitioners have made absolutely false averment in the application that they were not informed about the order by the earlier counsel. It is submitted that the petitioners have made deliberate mis-statement and did not disclose the names of the counsels who were earlier engaged and the counsels engaged subsequently. It is submitted that the counsel for the petitioner no.1 has never changed, however, the counsel appearing for petitioner no.2 was changed and new counsel was engaged after 3 months of the passing of the order impugned by the trial court. It is stated that the petitioners are vigilant litigant who themselves submitted the application for early hearing on application under Order 7, Rule 11 , CPC and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were not apprised by the earlier lawyer regarding the order impugned being passed for a period of about 12 months falls flat.;