SHAM SUNDER, J. - (1.)THE instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated2.11.2001 rendered by the Court of the then Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 345 days for filing the appeal, was dismissed.
(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995, the suit filed by Hari Dev-plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, with proportionate costs, was decreed by the Court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda.
Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred, in the Court of District Judge, which was entrusted to the Court of an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 345 days was filed by the petitioner- appellant, on the ground, that he came to know of the passing of the decree dated 20.10.1995 only on 30.8.1996, when an application was moved by Hari Dev-plaintiff in a suit, pending in the Court of Sudesh Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi. Thereafter, he came to Bathinda, and on enquiry, came to know that his Counsel Sh. J.C. Malhotra, had left the practice, and shifted to Delhi, by handing over all the briefs to Sh. Satya Murti Nayyar. He also came to know that Sh. S.M. Nayyar, Advocate, had been appearing on his behalf, without any authority, and without informing him of the developments in the case, and the dates of hearing. He filed an application through Counsel Sh. S.M. Nayyar on 12.9.1996, and copies were prepared on 26.9.1996. Thereafter on 28.9.1996, he filed an appeal within the period of limitation, from the date of knowledge. It was further stated, in the application, that the delay in filing the appeal, was neither intentional nor wilful.

(3.)ON notice of the application, the plaintiff-respondent put in appearance, and contested the application. It was stated that the petitioner very well knew that Sh. J.C. Malhotra, Advocate, earlier engaged by him had shifted to Delhi and thereafter Sh. S.M. Nayyar, Advocate, was appearing, on his behalf. It was denied that Sh. S.M. Nayyar was appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the suit without any authority. It was further stated that delay of 345 days in filing the appeal, was wilful and intentional and as such, could not be condoned.