default of the appearance of the appellant and his counsel.
An application for restoration of the appeal made
thereafter was also dismissed. In appeal ... appeal when the case was called out and
in the restoration application filed subsequently, attempt
was made to explain the default, which, of course
there was no
necessity for the appellant to file a fresh application for
restoration as the application for restitution was pending
before the competent authority ... High Court, therefore, were wrong in holding that the
application for restoration was barred by limitation.
It is then contended that the respondent being
order the appellant
filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC . The civil
Judge allowed the application and set aside the order
against which ... learned single
Judge in the impugned order has held that the application
for restoration does not lie. The only remedy open to the
appellant
Leave granted.
In view of the explanation given in the application for
restoration of special leave petitions dismissed on 11th
December, 1996 for default ... respondents, in the meanwhile,
promoted motor Vehicle Inspectors, the appellant filed the
application stating that the respondents had violated the
order of the Tribunal
from the respondents, it would be open to her to
file an application in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Valsad for this purpose ... Civil Judge. Learned Civil Judge is directed
to dispose of the application for restoration immediately
and would simultaneously take up the main matter and dispose
parte and the application
under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC is now pending before the High
Court. The application for restoration of the decree ... continue to deposit it as a condition to contest the
application to set aside ex-parte decree. Moreover, such
onerous condition is not valid, though
Limitation Act
applies to an application referable under the CPC and it
contemplates an application to the court as provided in the
Third Schedule ... question arose whether the Collector
to whom application under Section 3 of the Kosi Area
(Restoration of Lands to Raiyats
Schedules Tribes, as void and
inoperative. Procedure has been prescribed for restoration
of the lands the assignees or if they not available, the
land resumed ... competent authority on April 22, 1985 for restoration of
the land. The competent authority allowed the application
which was confirmed on appeal and, therefore
default on May 27, 1988.
An application under Order 9 Rule 4, C.P.C . was filed for
restoration on May 30, 1988. The appellant ... laid on behalf of
a dead person by the co-plaintiff. That application came to
be dismissed on May 30,1988 Subsequently, the co-plaintiff
Samatha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 11 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR
