Point of Law:
Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and the proposition is well-settled that when order has been made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the lower court in the exercise of its discretion allowing or refusing an application to extend time, it cannot be interfered with in revision, unless the lower court has acted with material irregularity or contrary to law or has come to that conclusion on no evidence.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

1. This petition seeks setting aside the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 59 of 2017. By that order, the application Paper No. 4C filed by the defendant-respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing an application Paper No. 5C under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC ] was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 30,000/-. By the same order a subsequent date was fixed for disposal of the application paper no. 5C filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.12.2003 passed in Original Suit No. 158 of 2000.

2. It appears from the petition that the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 158 of 2000 [Suit of 2000] for a decree of mandatory prohibitory injunction in respect of Gata Nos. 324 and 325 and Plot No. 14A for restraining the 21 defendants from causing any interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over Gata Nos. 324 and 325 (southern half), Udaipur Khas, Bareilly by forcibly entering into an unlawful possession or from raising any constructions over any part thereof, unless the defendant no. 1 seeks partition by metes and bounds of his share therein. Another relief appears to have been sought in the suit, for declaration of the sale-deeds from serial nos. 8 to 15 under Schedule-A to the plaint and the sale-deeds mentioned at serial nos. 4 to 10 under Schedule-B in respect of Gata No. 325, Udaipur Khas, Bareilly, as void. The sale-deeds pertaining to Plot No. 14A in favour of the defendant-respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 17.12.1999 was mentioned at serial no. 4 of Schedule-B to the plaint.

3. On 17.04.2000, an ex-parte interim order was granted by the court below restraining the defendants from raising any constructions over the suit property. The defendant- respondent nos. 4 and 5, who were arrayed as defendant nos. 15 and 14 respectively in the suit of 2000, filed an objection against the temporary injunction.

4. On 19.09.2001, an application being paper no. 205-C, signed jointly by the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent no. 5, was filed before the court below stating that after consideration of the record, the plaintiff-petitioner has found that the sale-deed in favour of Manoj Gupta, the defendant-respondent no. 5, was lawful and, therefore, he is entitled to raise constructions over the property so purchased by him. It was, accordingly, prayed in that application that the ad-interim injunction against the defendant-respondent no. 5 (defendant-respondent no. 14 in the suit of 2000) be vacated and recalled and the plaintiff-petitioner has no objection to it. On 19.09.2001 itself, the court below modified the interim order dated 17.04.2000 as far as the defendant- respondent no. 5 was concerned. It is stated in the petition that though at the stage of contest of the application for temporary injunction, a limited settlement took place to permit the defendant-respondent no. 5 to continue with the constructions being raised by him but thereafter no final settlement took place between the parties and no compromise in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC was filed nor any compromise was ever rendered by the trial court. It is further stated that the plaintiff-petitioner also never abandoned his claim against any of the defendants. It is stated that the defendant-respondents were fully conscious of the said fact and that they continued to appear in the suit even after filing of the application 205-C. It is stated that the defendant-respondent no. 5 got filed a vakalatnama of another counsel on his behalf on 03.07.2002. The suit was finally decreed vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2003 injuncting all the defendants permanently from raising any constructions over the suit property as well as interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner over the