- (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Churu dated September 8, 1988 by which he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-non-petitioner moved under Order 3 Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code for taking certain documents on record.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the revision petition is hopelessly time barred. He contended that the impugned order was passed on September 8, 1988, application for obtaining its certified copy was moved on December 8, 1988, it was ready on January 4, 1989 and it was taken by the petitioners on March 18, 1989. He con tended that this application for obtaining copy was practically moved after expiry of the period of limitation.
(3.) In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order was passed during the period of employees' strike, a notice was affixed on the notice board of the court on September 8, 1988 that the cases fixed up for that day would be taken up on December 8, 1988, when one of the petitioners went to the court on that date, he learnt that the said application had already been D/d. September 8, 1988 and, accordingly, an application for obtaining its certified copy was moved the same day. He further contended that the office gave him December 9, 1989 for the delivery of the copy, it was not ready, the petitioners were given copy on March 4, 1989 and as such the revision petition is within limitation. An affidavit of the petitioner No. 3, Sumermal has been filed in support of the application moved tinder section 5, Limitation Act. He lastly contended that this affidavit has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.;