1. This application under order 41 Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code for the- re-admission of the appeal, dismissed in default by this court on 24-2-1981 for non-prosecution, is made on 10-3-1982 after more than a year.

2. It appears that a Civil Second Appeal titled kaka Ram Vs. Prabha Shankar was pending in this Court for adjudication, On 15-12-1979 Mr. R. N. Bhalgotra had appeared for Mr. Baldev Singh learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal was adjourned because Mr. Baldev Singh was reported to be busy with the elections. Thereafter the case was adjourned and came up before the Deputy Registrar on 14-2-1980. It had again come up before him on 14-3-1980 and 25-4-1981. It was adjourned to 23-2-1981. On all these dates learned counsel for the appellant was not present. On 24-2-1951 Anand J., as his Lordship than was, passed the order which reads as under :-

"The case has been called repeatedly but nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant. No request has been made for adjournment either. The case is accordingly dismissed in default of appearance and non-prosecution. The stay granted shall stand vacated.

3. It is in these circumstances that the present CMP is filed. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken an objection that the application is barred by limitation. Under Art. 168 of the Limitation Act period prescribed for moving an application under order 41 Rule 19 Civil Pr : Code is thirty days from the date of dismissal of the suit and Mr. Bhalgotra appearing for the respondent submits that since the application has been made after more than a year, therefore, the application is hopelessly barred. He submits that from the words from the date of dismissal" occurring in Art. 168 of the Limitation Act is from the date of actual dismissal and not from the date of knowledge of dismissal In support of his contention he has relied on Municipal Board Vs. State Transport Authority, AIR 1965 S. C. 458, Ram Shankar and Ors. Vs. Lalta Prasad and anr AIR 1964 Allahabad 124, Kanai Lal Shaw Vs. Bhattu Shaw, AIR 1961 Cal. 474 and has referred to Rules 11, 17 and 19 of Order 41 Civil Pr : Code in order to show the scheme of Order 41 as in his opinion these Rules are in perimeter with the Rules contained in Order 9 C. P. C. Rule 17 of Order 41 provides that when on the date fixed or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing, the court may make the order that the appeal be dismissed. Sub. Rule (2) of this Rule provides that if the respondent does not appear and the appellant appears the appeal shall be heard exparte. An appeal can be dismissed under Rules 11 and 18 of Order 41 C.P.C. and dismissal of appeal under the aforesaid rules is to be remedied by rule 19 of Order 41 C. P. C. if the appellant makes an application to the appellate court for re-admission of the appeal and it is shown that he was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing in the Court. The authority reported in 1965 S. C. (Supra) is an authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and it lays down that the broad principle and says that "date of the order is Sec. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act should not be read as from the date of the knowledge of the Order." It further says that in the absence of clear indication to that effect the court is bound to hold that the application will be barred unless made within thirty days from the date of the order by which the person is aggrieved 1964 Allahabad (Supra) says that where the appeal is dismissed and the application is made under order 41 Rule 19 C. P, C. the application must be made within thirty days from the date of dismissal and application filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 168 L A. will be liable to be rejected 1961 Cal. (Supra) is an authority dealing with Order 9 Rule 9 C, P. C in this authority application for restoration of a suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the appeal was taken to the Divi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document