SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.7.16 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur District, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stands rejected and consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners in the court of Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur District Jodhpur. The written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants belatedly was objected to be taken on record by the respondents/plaintiffs. The objection of the respondents/plaintiffs was sustained vide order dated 15.9.04 passed by the trial court and accordingly, the written statement was refused to be taken on record. The order passed by the trial court as aforesaid was not further challenged by the petitioners and the same has attained finality. The matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence ex-parte and ultimately, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.09. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jodhpur District, which was later transferred for hearing and disposal to the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur District. The appeal filed after a delay of about two and half years was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. After due consideration, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act preferred by the petitioners stood dismissed by the Appellate Court and consequently, the appeal has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Hence, this revision petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were never informed by the counsel appearing on their behalf regarding the decision of the suit and the petitioners came to know about the suit being decreed only on 26.6.12 and thereafter, immediately the appeal was filed and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the First Appellate Court has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of fault on the part of the counsel appearing on his behalf. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Rishab Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.( Shri) v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.", 2011(2) RRT 833 .;