The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party can be prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within the limitation period if they lack knowledge of an amended order that affects their rights.

RAJESH BALIA, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act as the appeal is barred by 58 days.

( 2 ) RAISING objection to the application firstly it has been submitted that since it is an appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge by way of an interim relief which is an interlocutory order not deciding the rights of the parties, therefore, appeal is otherwise not maintainable under Section 18 of the rajasthan High Court Ordinance and the rules framed by the Rajasthan High Court, therefore, consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be of academic importance and secondly that the applicants have failed to make out any sufficient cause which could have prevented them from filing the appeal within limitation.

( 3 ) CONSIDERING the second point first, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for existence of sufficient cause which prevented them from not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It has been stated by the applicants in their application in the first instance that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27-11-2001, was received by them on 7-12-2001 at jaisalmer. That order shows no positive direction against the appellants but only direction of deposifing of money to the respondent and for admitting their petition. Apparently, it did not appear that the order is against him in his interest and he has not occasion to file an appeal.

( 4 ) HOWEVER on 26-2-2002, Officer of the indian Oil Corporation informed the appellants that the High Court has allowed them to enter into the land and to establish petrol pump. The appellants gathered this information from their lawyer on 27-2-2002 and then came to know for the first time about the existence of order dated 15-12-2001 which has been passed as an amendment or rectification of the order dated 27-11-2001. The said order records that in the order dated 27-11-2001 something remained to be transcribed and therefore, certain additions have to be made thereunder. So far as the factum of remaining something in the order dated 27-11-2001 was admitted as the fact by both the learned counsel and as a result of which by order dated 15-12-2001, the Court directed that in the order dated 27-11-2001 it should be read in addition that "in case deposits as ordered in the order dated 27-11-2001 is made by the Indian Oil Corpo-ration, Indian Oil Corporation will be permitted to use the land in question. This order will be subject to final disposal of the wirt petition.

( 5 ) THIS order, according to the appellants was never communicated to them and they did not come to know of it earlier than 27-2-2002. The appellants were informed by Officers of indian Oil Corporation that they have been permitted to establish petrol pump on the disputed land. When they visited the counsel in person on 27-2-2002, they for the first time came to know of the order dated 15-12-2001 by which additions were made in earlier order dated 27-11-2001 by way of rectification. Hence, they could not prefer appeal within period prescribed for special appeal and were prevented by sufficient cause from filing appeal within limitation. The appeal was filed on 13-3-2002 against the order which was passed on 27-11-2001 as amended on 15-12-2001, within reasonable time thereafter.

( 6 ) THE respondents have urged that receipt of the order dated 27-11-2001 by the appellant is not in dispute and the fact that the order has been passed in presence of learned counsel for both the parties, it amounts to an order passed in presence of parties and a party represented by counsel cannot plead ignorance of such order. Learned counsel strenuously relied on the presumption emanating from the appearance of the counsel that the appellants must be to have the knowledge of the order.

( 7 ) WE are of the opinion that while presumption about the knowledge of the order could, be drawn from the fact